linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 2/2] EDAC: al-mc-edac: Introduce Amazon's Annapurna Labs Memory Controller EDAC

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: <5d516c64-ecd8-6f36-5f95-6708fe0f3fd5@amazon.com>
Date:   Sun, 16 Aug 2020 12:17:31 +0300
From:   "Shenhar, Talel" <talel@...zon.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC:     <mchehab@...nel.org>, <james.morse@....com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
        <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
        <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <mark.rutland@....com>,
        <catalin.marinas@....com>, <will@...nel.org>,
        <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <hhhawa@...zon.com>,
        <ronenk@...zon.com>, <jonnyc@...zon.com>, <hanochu@...zon.com>,
        <eitan@...zon.com>, <talel@...zon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/2] EDAC: al-mc-edac: Introduce Amazon's Annapurna
 Labs Memory Controller EDAC


On 8/15/2020 9:33 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 12:51:55PM +0300, Talel Shenhar wrote:
>> +static void al_mc_edac_check(struct mem_ctl_info *mci)
>> +{
>> +     struct al_mc_edac *al_mc = mci->pvt_info;
>> +
>> +     if (al_mc->irq_ue <= 0)
>> +             handle_ue(mci);
>> +
>> +     if (al_mc->irq_ce <= 0)
>> +             handle_ce(mci);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static irqreturn_t al_mc_edac_irq_handler_ue(int irq, void *info)
>> +{
>> +     struct platform_device *pdev = info;
>> +     struct mem_ctl_info *mci = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>> +
>> +     if (handle_ue(mci))
>> +             return IRQ_HANDLED;
>> +     return IRQ_NONE;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static irqreturn_t al_mc_edac_irq_handler_ce(int irq, void *info)
>> +{
>> +     struct platform_device *pdev = info;
>> +     struct mem_ctl_info *mci = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>> +
>> +     if (handle_ce(mci))
>> +             return IRQ_HANDLED;
>> +     return IRQ_NONE;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static enum scrub_type al_mc_edac_get_scrub_mode(void __iomem *mmio_base)
>> +{
>> +     u32 ecccfg0;
>> +
>> +     ecccfg0 = readl(mmio_base + AL_MC_ECC_CFG);
>> +
>> +     if (FIELD_GET(AL_MC_ECC_CFG_SCRUB_DISABLED, ecccfg0))
>> +             return SCRUB_NONE;
>> +     else
>> +             return SCRUB_HW_SRC;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void devm_al_mc_edac_free(void *data)
>> +{
>> +     edac_mc_free(data);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void devm_al_mc_edac_del(void *data)
>> +{
>> +     edac_mc_del_mc(data);
>> +}
>  From a previous review:
>
> I said:
>
>> Drop the "al_mc_edac_" prefix from most of the static functions. You can
>> leave it in the probe function or the IRQ handler so that it is visible
>> in stack traces but all those small functions don't need that prefix.
> You replied with:
>
>> Shall be part of v7.
> and yet it ain't part of any v<num>.
>
> Why?

Thanks for taking a look.

 From cover letter:

- removed static function names prefix from internal functions (external
   used function, such as devm/interrupts-handlers/probe, left with the
   prefix to allow stack trace visibility)

As you can see, part of the functions got their prefix removed, e.g. 
prepare_msg, handle_ce, handle_ue.

I did take your advise for leaving prefix for having visibility for 
functions being used outside. hence, some were left with the prefix.

Let me know what you think.

>
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
>      Boris.
>
> https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette