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:   Thu, 7 Nov 2019 20:34:29 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     "Ghannam, Yazen" <Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com>
Cc:     "linux-edac@vger.kernel.org" <linux-edac@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] AMD64 EDAC: Check for nodes without memory, etc.
Message-ID: <20191107193429.GI19501@zn.tnic>
References: <20191106012448.243970-1-Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com>
 <20191106160607.GC28380@zn.tnic>
 <SN6PR12MB26398D9E617DF8C0ABE0252CF8790@SN6PR12MB2639.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
 <20191106195417.GF28380@zn.tnic>
 <20191107103857.GC19501@zn.tnic>
 <SN6PR12MB263984026F57EC7F3B33B2BFF8780@SN6PR12MB2639.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
 <20191107154006.GF19501@zn.tnic>
 <SN6PR12MB263925E6F18C3EDC8D398932F8780@SN6PR12MB2639.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <SN6PR12MB263925E6F18C3EDC8D398932F8780@SN6PR12MB2639.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 07:20:25PM +0000, Ghannam, Yazen wrote:
> Yes, that's right. But it looks like future systems will re-use PCI IDs even
> across families and models. And the PCI IDs will be more closely related to
> hardware capabilities than family and model.
> 
> In any case, we can address that when we get there.

I'd be fine with it if this really is the case and we don't end up
having to keep adding PCI IDs like crazy again. That was a moderate
PITA, AFAIR, especially for distro kernels having to constantly pick up
enablement patches and people complaining about it.

So you need to make sure the PCI IDs will really get reused before
converting back...

> >         if (!ecc_en || !nb_mce_en)
> >                 return false;
> >         else
> 
> Right, I meant you can drop this else and just return true.
> 
> >                 return true;

I prefer the regular if-else way because it reads faster and it is
straight-forward when one skims over the code.

But I can drop if if you insist. :-)

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette