On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 21:11:58 -0600
, Nathan Fontenot <nfont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> On 11/25/2014 05:07 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 22:33 +0000, Grant Likely wrote:
> >> The OF_RECONFIG notifier callback uses a different structure depending
> >> on whether it is a node change or a property change. This is silly, and
> >> not very safe. Rework the code to use the same data structure regardless
> >> of the type of notifier.
> >
> > I fell pretty good about this one except...
> >
> >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> >> index b9d1dfdbe5bb..9fe6002c1d5a 100644
> >> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> >> @@ -1711,12 +1711,11 @@ static void stage_topology_update(int core_id)
> >> static int dt_update_callback(struct notifier_block *nb,
> >> unsigned long action, void *data)
> >> {
> >> - struct of_prop_reconfig *update;
> >> + struct of_reconfig_data *update = data;
> >> int rc = NOTIFY_DONE;
> >>
> >> switch (action) {
> >> case OF_RECONFIG_UPDATE_PROPERTY:
> >> - update = (struct of_prop_reconfig *)data;
> >
> > Should we assert/bug on !update->dn / update->prop ?
> >
> > (Same for the rest of the patch)
> >
> > Or do you reckon it's pointless ?
> >
>
> I'm not sure it's worth it, if those are NULL pointers the drivers/of
> code would have tried to use them before invoking the notifier chain.
> We won't make it this far if they're NULL.
Agreed. I'm going to merge it as-is.
g.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
