Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] ACPI / APEI: Add SEI notification type support for
 ARMv8
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
CC:     <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, <lenb@kernel.org>, <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        <bp@alien8.de>, <robert.moore@intel.com>,
        <erik.schmauss@intel.com>, <dave.martin@arm.com>,
        <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>, <james.morse@arm.com>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>
References: <1527770506-8076-1-git-send-email-gengdongjiu@huawei.com>
 <1527770506-8076-2-git-send-email-gengdongjiu@huawei.com>
 <20180531105252.it67drvnsfz62pqa@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
From:   gengdongjiu <gengdongjiu@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <5aed8a29-a2c2-5080-d954-90c7f817ada1@huawei.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 Jun 2018 18:07:52 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180531105252.it67drvnsfz62pqa@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Mark,
   Thanks for the comments.

On 2018/5/31 18:52, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 08:41:45PM +0800, Dongjiu Geng wrote:
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_SEI
>> +static LIST_HEAD(ghes_sei);
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Return 0 only if one of the SEI error sources successfully reported an error
>> + * record sent from the firmware.
>> + */
>> +int ghes_notify_sei(void)
>> +{
>> +	struct ghes *ghes;
>> +	int ret = -ENOENT;
>> +
>> +	rcu_read_lock();
>> +	list_for_each_entry_rcu(ghes, &ghes_sei, list) {
>> +		if (!ghes_proc(ghes))
>> +			ret = 0;
>> +	}
>> +	rcu_read_unlock();
>> +	return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void ghes_sei_add(struct ghes *ghes)
>> +{
>> +	mutex_lock(&ghes_list_mutex);
>> +	list_add_rcu(&ghes->list, &ghes_sei);
>> +	mutex_unlock(&ghes_list_mutex);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void ghes_sei_remove(struct ghes *ghes)
>> +{
>> +	mutex_lock(&ghes_list_mutex);
>> +	list_del_rcu(&ghes->list);
>> +	mutex_unlock(&ghes_list_mutex);
>> +	synchronize_rcu();
>> +}
>> +#else /* CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_SEI */
>> +static inline void ghes_sei_add(struct ghes *ghes) { }
>> +static inline void ghes_sei_remove(struct ghes *ghes) { }
>> +#endif /* CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_SEI */
>> +
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_ACPI_APEI_NMI
>>  /*
> 
>> index 8feb0c8..9ba59e2 100644
>> --- a/include/acpi/ghes.h
>> +++ b/include/acpi/ghes.h
>> @@ -120,5 +120,6 @@ static inline void *acpi_hest_get_next(struct acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata)
>>  	     section = acpi_hest_get_next(section))
>>  
>>  int ghes_notify_sea(void);
>> +int ghes_notify_sei(void);
> 
> It would be nice to have a stub definition when !CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_SEI,
> e.g.
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_SEI
> int ghes_notify_sei(void);
> #else
> static in int ghes_notify_sei(void) { return -ENOENT; }
> #endif
> 
> ... as callers could simply call this without additional checks.
> 
> As a cleanup, similar would be nice for ghes_notify_sea() with
> CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_SEA.

I think your suggestion is better, I will do the cleanup include the ghes_notify_sea().
thanks again.

> 
> Thanks,
> Mark.
> 
> .
>