Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752594AbaKZNQk (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Nov 2014 08:16:40 -0500 Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com ([209.85.212.175]:47989 "EHLO mail-wi0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750988AbaKZNQi (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Nov 2014 08:16:38 -0500 From: Grant Likely Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/14] of/reconfig: Always use the same structure =?iso-8859-1?Q?for=0D?= notifiers To: Nathan Fontenot , Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Wolfram Sang , Pantelis Antoniou , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring , Mark Brown , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org In-Reply-To: <547544FE.5020706@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1416868422-22103-1-git-send-email-grant.likely@linaro.org> <1416868422-22103-8-git-send-email-grant.likely@linaro.org> <1416956874.5089.13.camel@kernel.crashing.org> <547544FE.5020706@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 13:16:34 +0000 Message-Id: <20141126131634.63DB7C4099B@trevor.secretlab.ca> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 21:11:58 -0600 , Nathan Fontenot wrote: > On 11/25/2014 05:07 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > 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 ? > > > > I'm not sure it's worth it, if those are NULL pointers the drivers/of > code would have tried to use them before invoking the notifier chain. > We won't make it this far if they're NULL. Agreed. I'm going to merge it as-is. g. -- 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/