| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20230810233007.GA41830@bhelgaas>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 18:30:07 -0500
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: LeoLiu-oc <LeoLiu-oc@...oxin.com>
Cc: lenb@...nel.org, james.morse@....com, tony.luck@...el.com,
bp@...en8.de, bhelgaas@...gle.com, robert.moore@...el.com,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, acpica-devel@...ts.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] ACPI/PCI: Add pci_acpi_program_hest_aer_params()
On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 08:05:44PM +0800, LeoLiu-oc wrote:
> From: leoliu-oc <leoliu-oc@...oxin.com>
>
> The extracted register values from HEST PCI Express AER structures are
> written to AER Capabilities.
In the subject, the prevailing style for this file is
(see "git log --oneline drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c"):
PCI/ACPI: ...
And I'd like the subject to tell users why they might want this patch.
It's obvious from the patch that this adds a function. What's *not*
obvious is *why* we want this new function. So the commit log should
tell us what the benefit is, and the subject line should be one-line
summary of that benefit.
This patch adds a function but no caller. The next patch is one-liner
that adds the caller. I think these two should be squashed so it's
easier to review (and easier to explain the benefit of *this* patch :))
> Signed-off-by: leoliu-oc <leoliu-oc@...oxin.com>
> ---
> drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c | 92 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> drivers/pci/pci.h | 5 +++
> 2 files changed, 97 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c b/drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c
> index a05350a4e49cb..cff54410e2427 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c
> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
> #include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
> #include <linux/pm_qos.h>
> #include <linux/rwsem.h>
> +#include <acpi/apei.h>
> #include "pci.h"
>
> /*
> @@ -783,6 +784,97 @@ int pci_acpi_program_hp_params(struct pci_dev *dev)
> return -ENODEV;
> }
>
> +/*
> + * program_aer_structure_to_aer_registers - Write the AER structure to
> + * the corresponding dev's AER registers.
> + *
> + * @info - the AER structure information
> + *
Remove the spurious blank comment line.
> + */
> +static void program_aer_structure_to_aer_registers(struct acpi_hest_parse_aer_info info)
> +{
> + u32 uncorrectable_mask;
> + u32 uncorrectable_severity;
> + u32 correctable_mask;
> + u32 advanced_capabilities;
> + u32 root_error_command;
> + u32 uncorrectable_mask2;
> + u32 uncorrectable_severity2;
> + u32 advanced_capabilities2;
> + int port_type;
> + int pos;
> + struct pci_dev *dev;
Order these declarations in order of use.
> + dev = info.pci_dev;
> + port_type = pci_pcie_type(dev);
> +
> + pos = pci_find_ext_capability(dev, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_ERR);
> + if (!pos)
> + return;
> +
> + if (port_type == PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT) {
> + uncorrectable_mask = info.acpi_hest_aer_root_port->uncorrectable_mask;
> + uncorrectable_severity = info.acpi_hest_aer_root_port->uncorrectable_severity;
> + correctable_mask = info.acpi_hest_aer_root_port->correctable_mask;
> + advanced_capabilities = info.acpi_hest_aer_root_port->advanced_capabilities;
> + root_error_command = info.acpi_hest_aer_root_port->root_error_command;
Except for this new code, this file fits in 80 columns, so I'd like
the new code to match.
> +
> + pci_write_config_dword(dev, pos + PCI_ERR_UNCOR_MASK, uncorrectable_mask);
I'm not sure we need to copy everything into local variables. Maybe
this could be split into three helper functions, which would save a
level of indent and a level of struct traversal (e.g., "rp->" instead
of "info.acpi_hest_aer_root_port->".
pci_write_config_dword(dev, pos + PCI_ERR_UNCOR_MASK, rp->uncorrectable_mask);
or
pci_write_config_dword(dev, pos + PCI_ERR_UNCOR_MASK,
rp->uncorrectable_mask);
If you have to define a new struct acpi_hest_aer_root_port, you could
make the member names shorter. But hopefully you *don't* have to do
that, so maybe we're stuck with the long existing member names in
acpi_hest_aer_common.
> +int pci_acpi_program_hest_aer_params(struct pci_dev *dev)
> +{
> + struct acpi_hest_parse_aer_info info = {
> + .pci_dev = dev,
> + .hest_matched_with_dev = 0,
> + .acpi_hest_aer_endpoint = NULL,
> + .acpi_hest_aer_root_port = NULL,
> + .acpi_hest_aer_for_bridge = NULL,
Drop the tab from the .pci_dev initialization since the other members
aren't lined up anyway. I think you can drop the other
initializations completely since they will be initialized to 0 or NULL
pointers by default.
> + };
> +
> + if (!pci_is_pcie(dev))
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + apei_hest_parse(apei_hest_parse_aer, &info);
> + if (info.hest_matched_with_dev == 1)
> + program_aer_structure_to_aer_registers(info);
> + else
> + return -ENODEV;
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> /**
> * pciehp_is_native - Check whether a hotplug port is handled by the OS
> * @bridge: Hotplug port to check
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.h b/drivers/pci/pci.h
> index a4c3974340576..37aa4a33eeed2 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/pci.h
> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.h
> @@ -713,6 +713,7 @@ void acpi_pci_refresh_power_state(struct pci_dev *dev);
> int acpi_pci_wakeup(struct pci_dev *dev, bool enable);
> bool acpi_pci_need_resume(struct pci_dev *dev);
> pci_power_t acpi_pci_choose_state(struct pci_dev *pdev);
> +int pci_acpi_program_hest_aer_params(struct pci_dev *dev);
> #else
> static inline int pci_dev_acpi_reset(struct pci_dev *dev, bool probe)
> {
> @@ -752,6 +753,10 @@ static inline pci_power_t acpi_pci_choose_state(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> {
> return PCI_POWER_ERROR;
> }
> +static inline int pci_acpi_program_hest_aer_params(struct pci_dev *dev)
> +{
> + return -ENODEV;
> +}
> #endif
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_PCIEASPM
> --
> 2.34.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists