Hi Borislav
> -----Original Message-----
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 03:40:42PM +0000, Jia He wrote:
> > Commit dc4e8c07e9e2 ("ACPI: APEI: explicit init of HEST and GHES in
> > apci_init()") introduced a bug that ghes_edac_register() would be
> > invoked before edac_init(). Because at that time, the bus "edac"
> > hadn't been even registered, this created sysfs /devices/mc0 instead
> > of
> > /sys/devices/system/edac/mc/mc0 on an Ampere eMag server.
> >
> > To remove the dependency of ghes_edac on ghes, make it a proper
> > module. Use a list to save the probing devices in ghes_probe(), and
> > defer the
> > ghes_edac_register() to module_init() of the new ghes_edac module by
> > iterating over the devices list.
> >
> > Co-developed-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Jia He <justin.he@xxxxxxx>
> > Fixes: dc4e8c07e9e2 ("ACPI: APEI: explicit init of HEST and GHES in
> > apci_init()")
> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> Why is this marked for stable?
>
> The prerequisite patches are needed too. I guess this needs to be
> communicated to stable folks somehow by doing
>
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxx # needs commits X, Y, ...
>
> but I guess the committer needs to do that because only at commit time will X
> and Y be known...
>
> So, is there any particular reason why this should be in stable?
Okay, I am fine with removing the stable line if dc4e8c07e9e2 will not be included in
any stable tree branch.
>
> > @@ -1442,7 +1449,9 @@ static int ghes_remove(struct platform_device
> > *ghes_dev)
> >
> > ghes_fini(ghes);
> >
> > - ghes_edac_unregister(ghes);
> > + mutex_lock(&ghes_devs_mutex);
> > + list_del_rcu(&ghes->elist);
>
> Is that list RCU-protected?
No, I will remove the "rcu" suffix since I use list_add_tail.
>
> > + mutex_unlock(&ghes_devs_mutex);
> >
> > kfree(ghes);
>
> ...
>
> > @@ -566,3 +549,35 @@ void ghes_edac_unregister(struct ghes *ghes)
> > unlock:
> > mutex_unlock(&ghes_reg_mutex);
> > }
> > +
> > +static int __init ghes_edac_init(void) {
> > + struct ghes *g, *g_tmp;
> > +
> > + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86))
> > + force_load = true;
>
> No, this is not how this works.
>
> > + ghes_devs = ghes_get_devices(force_load);
> > + if (!ghes_devs)
> > + return -ENODEV;
>
> You simply need to check force_load here.
>
Okay, hence should I export the *ghes_devs* in ghes?
--
Cheers,
Justin (Jia He)
