Hari Bathini <hbathini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 15/07/20 9:20 am, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
>>
>> Hari Bathini <hbathini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> @@ -534,7 +537,7 @@ static int __init early_init_dt_scan_memory_ppc(unsigned long node,
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_PPC_PSERIES
>>> if (depth == 1 &&
>>> strcmp(uname, "ibm,dynamic-reconfiguration-memory") == 0) {
>>> - walk_drmem_lmbs_early(node, early_init_drmem_lmb);
>>> + walk_drmem_lmbs_early(node, NULL, early_init_drmem_lmb);
>>
>> walk_drmem_lmbs_early() can now fail. Should this failure be propagated
>> as a return value of early_init_dt_scan_memory_ppc()?
>
>>
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>> #endif
>> <snip>
>>
>>> @@ -787,7 +790,7 @@ static int __init parse_numa_properties(void)
>>> */
>>> memory = of_find_node_by_path("/ibm,dynamic-reconfiguration-memory");
>>> if (memory) {
>>> - walk_drmem_lmbs(memory, numa_setup_drmem_lmb);
>>> + walk_drmem_lmbs(memory, NULL, numa_setup_drmem_lmb);
>>
>> Similarly here. Now that this call can fail, should
>> parse_numa_properties() handle or propagate the failure?
>
> They would still not fail unless the callbacks early_init_drmem_lmb() & numa_setup_drmem_lmb()
> are updated to have failure scenarios. Also, these call sites always ignored failure scenarios
> even before walk_drmem_lmbs() was introduced. So, I prefer to keep them the way they are?
Ok, makes sense. In this case:
Reviewed-by: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
