Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-100092-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, Borislav Petkov
 <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: x86-ml <x86@kernel.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-edac
 <linux-edac@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] EDAC updates for v6.9
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whTBKoHrBpMxh7OHQ=pcdy6K2zqqsJOZeCC4xSqRXb5Bg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20240311155651.GAZe8pw0urOnUZj1y_@fat_crate.local>
 <CAHk-=whTBKoHrBpMxh7OHQ=pcdy6K2zqqsJOZeCC4xSqRXb5Bg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 11:07:37 +0100
Message-ID: <878r2npxue.ffs@tglx>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Mon, Mar 11 2024 at 18:12, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 at 08:57, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
>>
>> -       return topology_die_id(err->cpu) % amd_get_nodes_per_socket();
>> +       return topology_amd_node_id(err->cpu) % topology_amd_nodes_per_pkg();
>
> Ho humm. Lookie here:
>
>     static inline unsigned int topology_amd_nodes_per_pkg(void)
>     { return 0; };
>
> that's the UP case.
>
> Yeah, I'm assuming nobody tests this for UP, but it's clearly wrong to
> potentially do that modulus by zero.

Duh. I clearly was not thinking at all when I wrote this.

Thanks for spotting it.


       tglx