Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751893AbaKYXI0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Nov 2014 18:08:26 -0500 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:46267 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751169AbaKYXIY (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Nov 2014 18:08:24 -0500 Message-ID: <1416956874.5089.13.camel@kernel.crashing.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/14] of/reconfig: Always use the same structure for notifiers From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Grant Likely Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Pantelis Antoniou , Rob Herring , Mark Brown , Wolfram Sang , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 10:07:54 +1100 In-Reply-To: <1416868422-22103-8-git-send-email-grant.likely@linaro.org> References: <1416868422-22103-1-git-send-email-grant.likely@linaro.org> <1416868422-22103-8-git-send-email-grant.likely@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.7-0ubuntu1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 22:33 +0000, Grant Likely wrote: > The OF_RECONFIG notifier callback uses a different structure depending > on whether it is a node change or a property change. This is silly, and > not very safe. Rework the code to use the same data structure regardless > of the type of notifier. I fell pretty good about this one except... > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c > index b9d1dfdbe5bb..9fe6002c1d5a 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c > +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c > @@ -1711,12 +1711,11 @@ static void stage_topology_update(int core_id) > static int dt_update_callback(struct notifier_block *nb, > unsigned long action, void *data) > { > - struct of_prop_reconfig *update; > + struct of_reconfig_data *update = data; > int rc = NOTIFY_DONE; > > switch (action) { > case OF_RECONFIG_UPDATE_PROPERTY: > - update = (struct of_prop_reconfig *)data; Should we assert/bug on !update->dn / update->prop ? (Same for the rest of the patch) Or do you reckon it's pointless ? Ben. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/