linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] cpu-topology: Skip the exist but not possible cpu nodes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200114144817.GB48816@bogus>
Date:   Tue, 14 Jan 2020 14:48:17 +0000
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     "Zengtao (B)" <prime.zeng@...ilicon.com>
Cc:     Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cpu-topology: Skip the exist but not possible cpu
 nodes

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 12:17:41PM +0000, Zengtao (B) wrote:
[...]

> Thanks very much for your explanation.
> So finally it turns into a very simple patch like this, more cleaner:
> +/*
> + * This function returns the logic cpu number of the node.
> + * There are basically three kinds of return values:
> + * (1) logic cpu number which is > 0.
> + * (2) -ENDEV when the node is valid one which can be found in the device tree

s/ENDEV/ENODEV/ again :)

> + * but there is no possible cpu nodes to match, when the CONFIG_NR_CPUS is
> + * smaller than cpus node numbers in device tree, this will happen. It's
> + * suggested to just ignore this case.
> + * (3) -1 if the node does not exist in the device tree
> + */
>  static int __init get_cpu_for_node(struct device_node *node)
>  {
>         struct device_node *cpu_node;
> @@ -261,7 +271,8 @@ static int __init get_cpu_for_node(struct device_node *node)
>         if (cpu >= 0)
>                 topology_parse_cpu_capacity(cpu_node, cpu);
>         else
> -               pr_crit("Unable to find CPU node for %pOF\n", cpu_node);
> +               pr_info("CPU node for %pOF exist but the possible cpu range is :%*pbl\n",
> +                       cpu_node, cpumask_pr_args(cpu_possible_mask));
> 
>         of_node_put(cpu_node);
>         return cpu;
> @@ -286,9 +297,8 @@ static int __init parse_core(struct device_node *core, int package_id,
>                                 cpu_topology[cpu].package_id = package_id;
>                                 cpu_topology[cpu].core_id = core_id;
>                                 cpu_topology[cpu].thread_id = i;
> -                       } else {
> -                               pr_err("%pOF: Can't get CPU for thread\n",
> -                                      t);
> +                       } else if (cpu != -ENODEV) {
> +                               pr_err("%pOF: Can't get CPU for thread\n", t);
>                                 of_node_put(t);
>                                 return -EINVAL;
>                         }
> @@ -307,7 +317,7 @@ static int __init parse_core(struct device_node *core, int package_id,
> 
>                 cpu_topology[cpu].package_id = package_id;
>                 cpu_topology[cpu].core_id = core_id;
> -       } else if (leaf) {
> +       } else if (leaf && cpu != -ENODEV) {
>                 pr_err("%pOF: Can't get CPU for leaf core\n", core);
>                 return -EINVAL;
>         }
> 
> Any more suggestions?

None except the above minor nit. I will wait for v3 before I give ack/review
tag. Thanks for the patience.

--
Regards,
Sudeep