linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/11] EDAC/ghes: Carve out MC device handling into separate functions

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

Message-ID: <20200316093134.GB26126@zn.tnic>
Date:   Mon, 16 Mar 2020 10:31:34 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Robert Richter <rrichter@...vell.com>
Cc:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Aristeu Rozanski <aris@...hat.com>, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/11] EDAC/ghes: Carve out MC device handling into
 separate functions

On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 04:13:13PM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> The functions are too long, carve out code that handles MC devices
> into the new functions ghes_mc_create(), ghes_mc_add_or_free() and
> ghes_mc_free(). Apart from better code readability the functions can
> be reused and the implementation of the error paths becomes easier.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Robert Richter <rrichter@...vell.com>
> ---
>  drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c | 133 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>  1 file changed, 79 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c b/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c
> index 358519e8c2e9..5a4c9694bbff 100644
> --- a/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c
> +++ b/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c
> @@ -462,16 +462,81 @@ static struct acpi_platform_list plat_list[] = {
>  	{ } /* End */
>  };
>  
> -int ghes_edac_register(struct ghes *ghes, struct device *dev)
> +static struct mem_ctl_info *ghes_mc_create(struct device *dev, int mc_idx,
> +					int num_dimm)
>  {
> -	bool fake = false;
> -	int rc = 0, num_dimm = 0;
> +	struct edac_mc_layer layers[1];
>  	struct mem_ctl_info *mci;
>  	struct ghes_mci *pvt;
> -	struct edac_mc_layer layers[1];
> -	struct ghes_dimm_fill dimm_fill;
> +
> +	layers[0].type = EDAC_MC_LAYER_ALL_MEM;
> +	layers[0].size = num_dimm;
> +	layers[0].is_virt_csrow = true;
> +
> +	mci = edac_mc_alloc(mc_idx, ARRAY_SIZE(layers), layers, sizeof(*pvt));
> +	if (!mci)
> +		return NULL;
> +
> +	pvt		= mci->pvt_info;
> +	pvt->mci	= mci;
> +
> +	mci->pdev = dev;
> +	mci->mtype_cap = MEM_FLAG_EMPTY;
> +	mci->edac_ctl_cap = EDAC_FLAG_NONE;
> +	mci->edac_cap = EDAC_FLAG_NONE;
> +	mci->mod_name = "ghes_edac.c";
> +	mci->ctl_name = "ghes_edac";
> +	mci->dev_name = "ghes";
> +
> +	return mci;
> +}
> +
> +static int ghes_mc_add_or_free(struct mem_ctl_info *mci)

ghes_mc_add() is good enough. The fact that the function has error
handling doesn't need to be in the name.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette