Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751943AbdHPOWx (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:22:53 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:41146 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751556AbdHPOWw (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:22:52 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org E5ADD22B5F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=goodmis.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=rostedt@goodmis.org Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:22:49 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Borislav Petkov Cc: "Luck, Tony" , "Kani, Toshimitsu" , "rjw@rjwysocki.net" , "lenb@kernel.org" , "mchehab@kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-edac@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk() Message-ID: <20170816102249.0c0d8d12@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20170816140350.o573iksqgkj4m5xu@pd.tnic> References: <1502734083.2042.143.camel@hpe.com> <20170814183551.sgk2i7lxpmpyodhv@pd.tnic> <1502736750.2042.145.camel@hpe.com> <20170814193432.mjldfhfal5ba5dt7@pd.tnic> <1502741290.2042.147.camel@hpe.com> <20170814203942.6t3mrq3hc324blab@pd.tnic> <1502810766.2042.149.camel@hpe.com> <20170815154815.wy3dqwb4yi3feahg@intel.com> <20170816082931.p6rpvtlxwt5nccxr@pd.tnic> <20170816095901.33b0d4c2@gandalf.local.home> <20170816140350.o573iksqgkj4m5xu@pd.tnic> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.0 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 424 Lines: 12 On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 16:03:50 +0200 Borislav Petkov wrote: > > What's the likelihood of two calls to ghes_edac_register being done > > simultaneously? Because two calls at the same time will get past this. > > Well, that thing gets called per GHES platform device and last time I > checked they do get probed back-to-back but I'll check that again. Maybe keep that original mutex just in case. -- Steve