Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:1;
Message-ID: <4f41e78e-5e47-0726-c64a-82559d1f799b@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Sep 2023 19:01:31 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/platform/uv: Use sysfs_match_string() for string
 parsing in param_set_action()
To:     Steve Wahl <steve.wahl@hpe.com>
Cc:     Justin Ernst <justin.ernst@hpe.com>,
        Kyle Meyer <kyle.meyer@hpe.com>,
        Dimitri Sivanich <dimitri.sivanich@hpe.com>,
        Russ Anderson <russ.anderson@hpe.com>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com>
References: <20230913151656.52792-1-hdegoede@redhat.com>
 <ZQHpC/oKLwfJuvRu@swahl-linux>
Content-Language: en-US, nl
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZQHpC/oKLwfJuvRu@swahl-linux>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi Steve,

On 9/13/23 18:56, Steve Wahl wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 05:16:56PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Remove the custom, hard to read code to:
>>
>> 1. Make a copy of "val" with any potential '\n' at the end stripped
>> 2. Compare the copy against an array of allowed string values
>>
>> Linux has the sysfs_match_string() helper exactly for cases like this,
>> switch to this.
> 
> Hans,
> 
> I like this patch, compiling and testing now.
> 
> I was wondering, as long as we're in the neighborhood, how you feel
> about changing the stored variable uv_nmi_action to an int or enum
> rather than a string, since it can only be one of 6 values, and the
> string compare while processing an NMI strikes me as inefficent.
> 
> It could extend this patch, or be done as a follow on.  And I'm
> willing to supply the effort if you want me to.

I must admit I did not look at the code consuming uv_nmi_action
and I did wonder why this was not an enum from day 1.

I'll prepare a v2 of this patch which changes uv_nmi_action
to an enum.

Note I can compile test this only, so I gope you will be able to
test the v2 a bit more thoroughly :)

Regards,

Hans