From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93536C64EB8 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 14:05:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 547B02087D for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 14:05:07 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 547B02087D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726707AbeJIVWL (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Oct 2018 17:22:11 -0400 Received: from szxga05-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.191]:13207 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726415AbeJIVWL (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Oct 2018 17:22:11 -0400 Received: from DGGEMS401-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.59]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 1C42B77E1A462; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 22:05:01 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.177.31.96) by DGGEMS401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.399.0; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 22:04:59 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 -next] powerpc/pseries/memory-hotplug: Fix return value type of find_aa_index To: Michael Ellerman , , , References: <20181004094113.5492-1-yuehaibing@huawei.com> <871s8z38qv.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> CC: , From: YueHaibing Message-ID: <2a3a8e6a-e636-268b-c2af-0404bc3cd388@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 22:04:58 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <871s8z38qv.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.177.31.96] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2018/10/9 15:00, Michael Ellerman wrote: > YueHaibing writes: >> 'aa_index' is defined as an unsigned value, but find_aa_index >> may return -1 when dlpar_clone_property fails. So we use an rc >> value to track the validation of finding the aa_index instead >> of the 'aa_index' value itself >> >> Fixes: c05a5a40969e ("powerpc/pseries: Dynamic add entires to associativity lookup array") >> Signed-off-by: YueHaibing >> --- >> v2: use 'rc' track the validation of aa_index > > Thanks for sending a v2, some more comments ... > >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-memory.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-memory.c >> index 9a15d39..796e68b 100644 >> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-memory.c >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-memory.c >> @@ -101,13 +101,12 @@ static struct property *dlpar_clone_property(struct property *prop, >> return new_prop; >> } >> >> -static u32 find_aa_index(struct device_node *dr_node, >> - struct property *ala_prop, const u32 *lmb_assoc) >> +static int find_aa_index(struct device_node *dr_node, struct property *ala_prop, >> + const u32 *lmb_assoc, u32 *aa_index) >> { >> u32 *assoc_arrays; >> - u32 aa_index; >> int aa_arrays, aa_array_entries, aa_array_sz; >> - int i, index; >> + int i, index, rc = -1; > > It's preferable to leave rc uninitialised until we actually need to > initialise it, that gives the compiler the chance to warn us if we use > it inadvertently before that. > >> >> /* >> * The ibm,associativity-lookup-arrays property is defined to be >> @@ -121,18 +120,18 @@ static u32 find_aa_index(struct device_node *dr_node, >> aa_array_entries = be32_to_cpu(assoc_arrays[1]); >> aa_array_sz = aa_array_entries * sizeof(u32); >> >> - aa_index = -1; > > So that would be here: > rc = -1; > > But .. > >> for (i = 0; i < aa_arrays; i++) { >> index = (i * aa_array_entries) + 2; >> >> if (memcmp(&assoc_arrays[index], &lmb_assoc[1], aa_array_sz)) >> continue; >> >> - aa_index = i; >> + *aa_index = i; >> + rc = 0; >> break; >> } > > The 'rc' variable is basically a boolean now, it means "we found something". > > And all we do with it in the found case (rc = 0) is test it below and return. > > So can't we just return directly in the for loop above, rather than breaking? > > In which case we don't need the rc variable at all. > > And the whole function may as well return bool, rather than int. > > Does that make sense? Yes, will do that in v3. > > cheers > >> - if (aa_index == -1) { >> + if (rc == -1) { >> struct property *new_prop; >> u32 new_prop_size; >> >> @@ -157,10 +156,11 @@ static u32 find_aa_index(struct device_node *dr_node, >> * number of entries - 1 since we added its associativity >> * to the end of the lookup array. >> */ >> - aa_index = be32_to_cpu(assoc_arrays[0]) - 1; >> + *aa_index = be32_to_cpu(assoc_arrays[0]) - 1; >> + rc = 0; >> } >> >> - return aa_index; >> + return rc; >> } >> >> static int update_lmb_associativity_index(struct drmem_lmb *lmb) > > . >