On Wed, 2015-05-27 at 17:52 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 04:13:22PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote: > > On 05/21/2015 02:11 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > >From: Borislav Petkov<bp@xxxxxxx> > > > > > >So first of all, this atomic_scrub() function's naming is bad. It looks > > >like an atomic_t helper. Change it to edac_atomic_scrub(). > > > > > >The bigger problem is that this function is arch-specific and every new > > >arch which doesn't necessarily need that functionality still needs to > > >define it, otherwise EDAC doesn't compile. > > > > > >So instead of doing that and including arch-specific headers, have each > > >arch define an EDAC_ATOMIC_SCRUB symbol which can be used in edac_mc.c > > >for ifdeffery. Much cleaner. > > > > > >We already are doing this with another symbol - EDAC_SUPPORT. This is > > >also much cleaner than having CONFIG_EDAC explicitly depend on all the > > >arches which need/have EDAC support and drivers. > > > > > >This way I can kill the useless edac.h header in tile too. > > > > > >Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov<bp@xxxxxxx> > > > > Acked-by: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@xxxxxxxxxx> [for tile] > > Thanks. > > Just to clarify after today's discussion on IRC: this patch doesn't > change current DRAM scrubbing behavior on the relevant arches - it > simply makes the definition of that atomic_scrub thing non-mandatory on > new arches or on those which don't need it. > > In the meantime, patch has been build-tested on arm and ppc - the two > I'm missing an ACK for. I haven't tested it but it looks sane: Acked-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> cheers -- 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
