[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <425bceb1-a03c-06da-f39c-1299662fb6b0@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 09:34:18 +0800
From: Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <x86@...nel.org>,
<linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] acpi/processor: Fix the return value of
acpi_processor_ids_walk()
At 05/22/2018 09:47 AM, Dou Liyang wrote:
>
>
> At 05/19/2018 11:06 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018, Dou Liyang wrote:
>>
>>> ACPI driver should make sure all the processor IDs in their ACPI
>>> Namespace
>>> are unique for CPU hotplug. the driver performs a depth-first walk of
>>> the
>>> namespace tree and calls the acpi_processor_ids_walk().
>>>
>>> But, the acpi_processor_ids_walk() will return true if one processor is
>>> checked, that cause the walk break after walking pass the first
>>> processor.
>>>
>>> Repace the value with AE_OK which is the standard acpi_status value.
>>>
>>> Fixes 8c8cb30f49b8 ("acpi/processor: Implement DEVICE operator for
>>> processor enumeration")
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c | 4 ++--
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
>>> b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
>>> index 449d86d39965..db5bdb59639c 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
>>> @@ -663,11 +663,11 @@ static acpi_status __init (acpi_handle handle,
>>> }
>>> processor_validated_ids_update(uid);
>>> - return true;
>>> + return AE_OK;
>>> err:
>>> acpi_handle_info(handle, "Invalid processor object\n");
>>> - return false;
>>> + return AE_OK;
>>
>> I'm not sure whether this is the right return value here. Rafael?
>>
+Cc Rafael's common used email address.
I am sorry, I created the cc list using ./script/get_maintainers.pl ...
and didn't check it.
Thanks,
dou
> Hi, Thomas, Rafael,
>
> Yes, I used AE_OK to make sure it can skip the invalid objects and
> continue to do the following other objects, I'm also not sure.
>
> For this bug, recently, I sent another patch to remove this check code
> away.
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/5/17/320
>
> IMO, the duplicate IDs can be avoid by the other code
>
> if (invalid_logical_cpuid(pr->id) || !cpu_present(pr->id)) ---- 1)
>
> As the mapping of cpu_id(pr->id) and processor_id is fixed, when
> hot-plugging a physical CPU, if its processor_id is duplicated with the
> present, the above condition 1) will be 0, and Linux will do not add
> this CPU.
>
> And, when every time the system starts, this code will be executed, it
> will waste more time with the increase in the number of CPU.
>
> So I prefer to remove this code.
>
> Thanks,
> dou
>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists