[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y7Vp+EPq5wkGr5mi@zn.tnic>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2023 12:58:48 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Ross Philipson <ross.philipson@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
dpsmith@...rtussolutions.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
hpa@...or.com, luto@...capital.net, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
kanth.ghatraju@...cle.com, trenchboot-devel@...glegroups.com,
jailhouse-dev@...glegroups.com, jan.kiszka@...mens.com,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, jgross@...e.com,
boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86: Check return values from early_memremap calls
On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 08:07:53AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 11/10/22 07:45, Ross Philipson wrote:
> > dt = early_memremap(initial_dtb, map_len);
> > + if (!dt) {
> > + pr_warn("failed to memremap initial dtb\n");
> > + return;
> > + }
>
> Are all of these new pr_warn/err()'s really adding much value? They all
> look pretty generic. It makes me wonder if we should just spit out a
> generic message in early_memremap() and save all the callers the trouble.
Well, let's see.
early_memremap() calls __early_ioremap() and that one already warns befofe each
NULL return. So I guess we don't need the error messages as we will know where
it starts failing.
I guess we still need the error handling though.
I.e., this above should be:
dt = early_memremap(initial_dtb, map_len);
+ if (!dt)
+ return;
so that we don't go off into the weeds with a NULL ptr.
Or?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists