linux-kernel - [PATCH v6 07/16] ACPI: scan: switch to flags for acpi_scan_check_and

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: <20240417131909.7925-8-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 14:19:00 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Peter Zijlstra
	<peterz@...radead.org>, <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	<loongarch@...ts.linux.dev>, <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev>,
	<x86@...nel.org>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, "Rafael J . Wysocki"
	<rafael@...nel.org>, Miguel Luis <miguel.luis@...cle.com>, James Morse
	<james.morse@....com>, Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@...wei.com>, Jean-Philippe
 Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>, Catalin Marinas
	<catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave
 Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
	<justin.he@....com>, <jianyong.wu@....com>
Subject: [PATCH v6 07/16] ACPI: scan: switch to flags for acpi_scan_check_and_detach();

Precursor patch adds the ability to pass a uintptr_t of flags into
acpi_scan_check_and detach() so that additional flags can be
added to indicate whether to defer portions of the eject flow.
The new flag follows in the next patch.

Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>

---
v6: Based on internal feedback switch to less invasive change
    to using flags rather than a struct.
v5: New patch resulting from rebase.
    - Internal review suggested we could also do this with flags
      so I'm looking for feedback on which option people find
      more readable.
---
 drivers/acpi/scan.c | 17 ++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/scan.c b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
index d1464324de95..1ec9677e6c2d 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
@@ -244,13 +244,16 @@ static int acpi_scan_try_to_offline(struct acpi_device *device)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static int acpi_scan_check_and_detach(struct acpi_device *adev, void *check)
+#define ACPI_SCAN_CHECK_FLAG_STATUS	BIT(0)
+
+static int acpi_scan_check_and_detach(struct acpi_device *adev, void *p)
 {
 	struct acpi_scan_handler *handler = adev->handler;
+	uintptr_t flags = (uintptr_t)p;
 
-	acpi_dev_for_each_child_reverse(adev, acpi_scan_check_and_detach, check);
+	acpi_dev_for_each_child_reverse(adev, acpi_scan_check_and_detach, p);
 
-	if (check) {
+	if (flags & ACPI_SCAN_CHECK_FLAG_STATUS) {
 		acpi_bus_get_status(adev);
 		/*
 		 * Skip devices that are still there and take the enabled
@@ -288,7 +291,9 @@ static int acpi_scan_check_and_detach(struct acpi_device *adev, void *check)
 
 static void acpi_scan_check_subtree(struct acpi_device *adev)
 {
-	acpi_scan_check_and_detach(adev, (void *)true);
+	uintptr_t flags = ACPI_SCAN_CHECK_FLAG_STATUS;
+
+	acpi_scan_check_and_detach(adev, (void *)flags);
 }
 
 static int acpi_scan_hot_remove(struct acpi_device *device)
@@ -2601,7 +2606,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_bus_scan);
  */
 void acpi_bus_trim(struct acpi_device *adev)
 {
-	acpi_scan_check_and_detach(adev, NULL);
+	uintptr_t flags = 0;
+
+	acpi_scan_check_and_detach(adev, (void *)flags);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(acpi_bus_trim);
 
-- 
2.39.2