Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Hari Bathini <hbathini@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/12] powerpc/drmem: make lmb walk a bit more flexible
To:     Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Pingfan Liu <piliu@redhat.com>, Nayna Jain <nayna@linux.ibm.com>,
        Kexec-ml <kexec@lists.infradead.org>,
        Mahesh J Salgaonkar <mahesh@linux.ibm.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>,
        Sourabh Jain <sourabhjain@linux.ibm.com>,
        Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@suse.cz>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>,
        Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
References: <159466074408.24747.10036072269371204890.stgit@hbathini.in.ibm.com>
 <159466090332.24747.9255471295044653085.stgit@hbathini.in.ibm.com>
 <871rld8mic.fsf@morokweng.localdomain>
Message-ID: <30e8f02a-f009-70a5-01e9-dec9eff213b1@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Jul 2020 02:39:38 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <871rld8mic.fsf@morokweng.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 15/07/20 9:20 am, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> 
> Hari Bathini <hbathini@linux.ibm.com> writes:
> 
>> @@ -534,7 +537,7 @@ static int __init early_init_dt_scan_memory_ppc(unsigned long node,
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_PPC_PSERIES
>>  	if (depth == 1 &&
>>  	    strcmp(uname, "ibm,dynamic-reconfiguration-memory") == 0) {
>> -		walk_drmem_lmbs_early(node, early_init_drmem_lmb);
>> +		walk_drmem_lmbs_early(node, NULL, early_init_drmem_lmb);
> 
> walk_drmem_lmbs_early() can now fail. Should this failure be propagated
> as a return value of early_init_dt_scan_memory_ppc()?
  
> 
>>  		return 0;
>>  	}
>>  #endif
> <snip>
> 
>> @@ -787,7 +790,7 @@ static int __init parse_numa_properties(void)
>>  	 */
>>  	memory = of_find_node_by_path("/ibm,dynamic-reconfiguration-memory");
>>  	if (memory) {
>> -		walk_drmem_lmbs(memory, numa_setup_drmem_lmb);
>> +		walk_drmem_lmbs(memory, NULL, numa_setup_drmem_lmb);
> 
> Similarly here. Now that this call can fail, should
> parse_numa_properties() handle or propagate the failure?

They would still not fail unless the callbacks early_init_drmem_lmb() & numa_setup_drmem_lmb()
are updated to have failure scenarios. Also, these call sites always ignored failure scenarios
even before walk_drmem_lmbs() was introduced. So, I prefer to keep them the way they are?

Thanks
Hari