[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4f41e78e-5e47-0726-c64a-82559d1f799b@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2023 19:01:31 +0200
From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To: Steve Wahl <steve.wahl@....com>
Cc: Justin Ernst <justin.ernst@....com>,
Kyle Meyer <kyle.meyer@....com>,
Dimitri Sivanich <dimitri.sivanich@....com>,
Russ Anderson <russ.anderson@....com>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/platform/uv: Use sysfs_match_string() for string
parsing in param_set_action()
Hi Steve,
On 9/13/23 18:56, Steve Wahl wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 05:16:56PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Remove the custom, hard to read code to:
>>
>> 1. Make a copy of "val" with any potential '\n' at the end stripped
>> 2. Compare the copy against an array of allowed string values
>>
>> Linux has the sysfs_match_string() helper exactly for cases like this,
>> switch to this.
>
> Hans,
>
> I like this patch, compiling and testing now.
>
> I was wondering, as long as we're in the neighborhood, how you feel
> about changing the stored variable uv_nmi_action to an int or enum
> rather than a string, since it can only be one of 6 values, and the
> string compare while processing an NMI strikes me as inefficent.
>
> It could extend this patch, or be done as a follow on. And I'm
> willing to supply the effort if you want me to.
I must admit I did not look at the code consuming uv_nmi_action
and I did wonder why this was not an enum from day 1.
I'll prepare a v2 of this patch which changes uv_nmi_action
to an enum.
Note I can compile test this only, so I gope you will be able to
test the v2 a bit more thoroughly :)
Regards,
Hans
Powered by blists - more mailing lists