[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180915222704.GA76410@romley-ivt3.sc.intel.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2018 15:27:05 -0700
From: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"Chatre, Reinette" <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
Xiaochen Shen <xiaochen.shen@...el.com>,
Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] x86/intel_rdt: Fix MBA parsing callback
On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 12:13:53PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2018, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> > +int parse_bw(void *_data, struct rdt_resource *r, struct rdt_domain *d);
>
> Sorry no. This keeps the code equally error prone as it was. Why is that
> argument a void pointer in the first place?
>
> > extern struct mutex rdtgroup_mutex;
>
> This is a copy of rdt_cbm_parse_data. Sigh.
>
> The right thing to do here is
>
> 1) rename struct rdt_cbm_parse_data to struct rdt_parse_data
>
> 2) Move it to a header file
>
> 3) Change the argument of parse_ctrlval from void * to struct
> rdt_parse_data *
>
> Everything else is just proliferating the initial underlying problem of
> having a void pointer in those callbacks for no reason at all.
Sure. I have updated this patch and patch 2, 4, 5 based on your comments.
Thanks.
-Fenghua
Powered by blists - more mailing lists