Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-30188-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240110090107.26323-1-ppbuk5246@gmail.com> <21e77238-4884-40ca-bc01-b7e4774b9239@arm.com>
 <29a13c04-f669-a6c3-4693-af7e44469ad2@arm.com> <CAM7-yPRSY7rz-GCWAS1yY75kD1FUjJTF=_AdCd0LtEhQa9dssg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAM7-yPRSY7rz-GCWAS1yY75kD1FUjJTF=_AdCd0LtEhQa9dssg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Yun Levi <ppbuk5246@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 14:14:46 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM7-yPRfEZnYoZQQophrdQUrAi5=UVfxZ=SVZs=U4MTC6Nyg4w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware/arm_sdei: Fix invalid argument to unregister
 private events.
To: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
Cc: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@arm.com>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

> But, I think it should be checked on sdei_reboot_notifier.
> otherwise, In the situation sdei device was freezed, when
> sdei_reboot_notifier is called,
> It would fail on cpuhp_cb_check too.
>
> Should I add a sanity check on sdei_reboot_notifier in the next patch?
>

Sorry to make a noise. Maybe there's no case for this.