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;
Date:   Sat, 15 Sep 2018 15:27:05 -0700
From:   Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        H Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        "Chatre, Reinette" <reinette.chatre@intel.com>,
        Xiaochen Shen <xiaochen.shen@intel.com>,
        Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] x86/intel_rdt: Fix MBA parsing callback
Message-ID: <20180915222704.GA76410@romley-ivt3.sc.intel.com>
References: <1536957129-70380-1-git-send-email-fenghua.yu@intel.com>
 <1536957129-70380-2-git-send-email-fenghua.yu@intel.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809151206340.1650@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809151206340.1650@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 12:13:53PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2018, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> > +int parse_bw(void *_data, struct rdt_resource *r, struct rdt_domain *d);
> 
> Sorry no. This keeps the code equally error prone as it was. Why is that
> argument a void pointer in the first place? 
> 
> >  extern struct mutex rdtgroup_mutex;
> 
> This is a copy of rdt_cbm_parse_data. Sigh.
> 
> The right thing to do here is
> 
>     1) rename struct rdt_cbm_parse_data to struct rdt_parse_data
> 
>     2) Move it to a header file
> 
>     3) Change the argument of parse_ctrlval from void * to struct
>        rdt_parse_data *
> 
> Everything else is just proliferating the initial underlying problem of
> having a void pointer in those callbacks for no reason at all.

Sure. I have updated this patch and patch 2, 4, 5 based on your comments.

Thanks.

-Fenghua