On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 09:43:57AM -0700, Mike Travis wrote:
>
>
> On 9/5/2019 7:47 AM, Mike Travis wrote:
> > Also, nit:
> >
> > > --- linux.orig/arch/x86/kernel/apic/x2apic_uv_x.c
> > > +++ linux/arch/x86/kernel/apic/x2apic_uv_x.c
> > > @@ -1303,7 +1303,8 @@ static int __init decode_uv_systab(void)
> > > struct uv_systab *st;
> > > int i;
> > > - if (uv_hub_info->hub_revision < UV4_HUB_REVISION_BASE)
> > > + /* Select only UV4 (hubbed or hubless) and higher */
> > > + if (is_uv_hubbed(-2) < uv(4) && is_uv_hubless(-2) < uv(4))
> > > return 0; /* No extended UVsystab required */
> > > st = uv_systab;
> > > @@ -1554,8 +1555,19 @@ static __init int uv_system_init_hubless
> > > /* Init kernel/BIOS interface */
> > > rc = uv_bios_init();
> > > + if (rc < 0) {
> > > + pr_err("UV: BIOS init error:%d\n", rc);
> >
> > Why isn't that function printing an error?
> >
> >
> > > + return rc;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + /* Process UVsystab */
> > > + rc = decode_uv_systab();
> > > + if (rc < 0) {
> > > + pr_err("UV: UVsystab decode error:%d\n", rc);
> >
> > Same here, have the function itself print the error, makes this type of
> > stuff much cleaner.
>
> Turns out both functions already print an error message for each instance of
> an error. The only redundancy is the caller also printing an error with
> just the numeric error code. Shall I remove that?
Of course you should, why would you want to see multiple error messages
for the same single error?
greg k-h
