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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] powerpc/papr_scm: Properly handle UUID types and
 API
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Vaibhav Jain <vaibhav@linux.ibm.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        "Oliver O'Halloran" <oohall@gmail.com>
References: <20210415134637.17770-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <af677216-82b4-f1fa-1d90-3d32dabf8583@linux.ibm.com>
 <YHlUNSwm8Ofy9sNr@smile.fi.intel.com>
From:   "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <8e724a87-da78-9fc9-073e-cbbfea0ff97e@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Apr 2021 15:05:31 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <YHlUNSwm8Ofy9sNr@smile.fi.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 4/16/21 2:39 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 01:28:21PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> On 4/15/21 7:16 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> Parse to and export from UUID own type, before dereferencing.
>>> This also fixes wrong comment (Little Endian UUID is something else)
>>> and should fix Sparse warnings about assigning strict types to POD.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 43001c52b603 ("powerpc/papr_scm: Use ibm,unit-guid as the iset cookie")
>>> Fixes: 259a948c4ba1 ("powerpc/pseries/scm: Use a specific endian format for storing uuid from the device tree")
>>> Cc: Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> Not tested
>>>    arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c | 13 ++++++++-----
>>>    1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c
>>> index ae6f5d80d5ce..4366e1902890 100644
>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c
>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c
>>> @@ -1085,8 +1085,9 @@ static int papr_scm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>    	u32 drc_index, metadata_size;
>>>    	u64 blocks, block_size;
>>>    	struct papr_scm_priv *p;
>>> +	u8 uuid_raw[UUID_SIZE];
>>>    	const char *uuid_str;
>>> -	u64 uuid[2];
>>> +	uuid_t uuid;
>>>    	int rc;
>>>    	/* check we have all the required DT properties */
>>> @@ -1129,16 +1130,18 @@ static int papr_scm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>    	p->hcall_flush_required = of_property_read_bool(dn, "ibm,hcall-flush-required");
>>>    	/* We just need to ensure that set cookies are unique across */
>>> -	uuid_parse(uuid_str, (uuid_t *) uuid);
>>> +	uuid_parse(uuid_str, &uuid);
>>> +
>>>    	/*
>>>    	 * cookie1 and cookie2 are not really little endian
>>> -	 * we store a little endian representation of the
>>> +	 * we store a raw buffer representation of the
>>>    	 * uuid str so that we can compare this with the label
>>>    	 * area cookie irrespective of the endian config with which
>>>    	 * the kernel is built.
>>>    	 */
>>> -	p->nd_set.cookie1 = cpu_to_le64(uuid[0]);
>>> -	p->nd_set.cookie2 = cpu_to_le64(uuid[1]);
>>> +	export_uuid(uuid_raw, &uuid);
>>> +	p->nd_set.cookie1 = get_unaligned_le64(&uuid_raw[0]);
>>> +	p->nd_set.cookie2 = get_unaligned_le64(&uuid_raw[8]);
>>
>> ok that does the equivalent of cpu_to_le64 there. So we are good. But the
>> comment update is missing the details why we did that get_unaligned_le64.
>> Maybe raw buffer representation is the correct term?
>> Should we add an example in the comment. ie,
> 
>> /*
>>   * Historically we stored the cookie in the below format.
>> for a uuid str 72511b67-0b3b-42fd-8d1d-5be3cae8bcaa
>> cookie1 was  0xfd423b0b671b5172 cookie2 was 0xaabce8cae35b1d8d
>> */
> 
> I'm fine with the comment. At least it will shed a light on the byte ordering
> we are expecting.
> 

Will you be sending an update? Also it will be good to list the sparse 
warning in the commit message?

-aneesh