From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752232AbbEKQfv (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 May 2015 12:35:51 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:58721 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751209AbbEKQfs (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 May 2015 12:35:48 -0400 Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 17:35:42 +0100 From: Lorenzo Pieralisi To: Hanjun Guo Cc: Sudeep Holla , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Will Deacon , Catalin Marinas , Boris Ostrovsky , Stefano Stabellini , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] ACPI / processor: Introduce invalid_phys_cpuid() Message-ID: <20150511163542.GB2942@red-moon> References: <1430793998-21631-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <1430793998-21631-8-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <5548A8C5.1080406@arm.com> <5548C219.9060100@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5548C219.9060100@linaro.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 02:14:01PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote: > On 2015???05???05??? 19:25, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > > > > On 05/05/15 03:46, Hanjun Guo wrote: > >> Introduce invalid_phys_cpuid() to identify cpu with invalid > >> physical ID, then used it as replacement of the direct comparisons > >> with PHYS_CPUID_INVALID. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo > >> --- > >> drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c | 4 ++-- > >> drivers/acpi/processor_core.c | 4 ++-- > >> include/linux/acpi.h | 5 +++++ > >> 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c > >> b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c > >> index 62c846b..92a5f73 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c > > > > [...] > > > >> diff --git a/include/linux/acpi.h b/include/linux/acpi.h > >> index 913b49f..cc82ff3 100644 > >> --- a/include/linux/acpi.h > >> +++ b/include/linux/acpi.h > >> @@ -163,6 +163,11 @@ static inline bool invalid_logical_cpuid(u32 cpuid) > >> return (int)cpuid < 0; > >> } > >> > >> +static inline bool invalid_phys_cpuid(phys_cpuid_t phys_id) > >> +{ > >> + return (int)phys_id < 0; > > > > Should this be phys_id == PHYS_CPUID_INVALID ? else I don't see why we > > need to even define PHYS_CPUID_INVALID > > I'm OK with this. For now, CPU phys_id will be valid value or > PHYS_CPUID_INVALID in all cases for ACPI processor driver, but > I want ask Rafael's opinion on this, is it OK to you too, Rafael? Is your worry related to functions returning error values other than PHYS_CPUID_INVALID (when they are expected to return a physical id) ? Is there any in the current kernel ? static inline bool invalid_phys_cpuid(phys_cpuid_t phys_id) { return phys_id == PHYS_CPUID_INVALID; } This should do, and if we need more mapping functions that are supposed to return physical ids they should return PHYS_CPUID_INVALID on failure. Lorenzo