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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93718C433FE for ; Thu, 10 Nov 2022 16:08:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230034AbiKJQH6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Nov 2022 11:07:58 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:43756 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229976AbiKJQH4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Nov 2022 11:07:56 -0500 Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 835873F043 for ; Thu, 10 Nov 2022 08:07:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1668096475; x=1699632475; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JPp5EDDddCIcW0tICeOFfz4HE4lQV+wPxVcAIA4+K6M=; b=jYTcli9wtE1KRyv0IWu/q8bxQ8O1xVAZqPd9CFfBj8iGe6CVsUNAjjcH jWwuCAsglVNEcWCHiygDDZOuGmqrKE7MYMwJRVwmtgH3DiBAtiEM/1h/m 8dIYPwoad0cj8AVz8J4WS2pLjzOiyFyUFML34BGiu0F4oOd1TIdM9BdkO v65owuSpgIghRX93eo6T9cJVgP1TuMmaC14PbAO71EXAbxe+uO0Bj7yOZ oddp/U4mvA77b969jfi/4uK3XWfzyBmA4oZe1zXj4oEi4zyXpKASgNoQr jr7DZYRgHWYCxGuk9alAwvwGQ6ye/hcHE3oO6HNt6wFKP0DzuaG6vap63 Q==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10527"; a="338106872" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.96,154,1665471600"; d="scan'208";a="338106872" Received: from orsmga007.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.58]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Nov 2022 08:07:55 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10527"; a="631702730" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.96,154,1665471600"; d="scan'208";a="631702730" Received: from csalvo-mobl1.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.212.217.97]) ([10.212.217.97]) by orsmga007-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Nov 2022 08:07:54 -0800 Message-ID: <8e62a029-f2fa-0627-1f71-4850a68ec6b6@intel.com> Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 08:07:53 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.2.2 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86: Check return values from early_memremap calls Content-Language: en-US To: Ross Philipson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org Cc: dpsmith@apertussolutions.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com, luto@amacapital.net, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, kanth.ghatraju@oracle.com, trenchboot-devel@googlegroups.com, jailhouse-dev@googlegroups.com, jan.kiszka@siemens.com, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, jgross@suse.com, boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com References: <20221110154521.613472-1-ross.philipson@oracle.com> <20221110154521.613472-2-ross.philipson@oracle.com> From: Dave Hansen In-Reply-To: <20221110154521.613472-2-ross.philipson@oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/10/22 07:45, Ross Philipson wrote: > dt = early_memremap(initial_dtb, map_len); > + if (!dt) { > + pr_warn("failed to memremap initial dtb\n"); > + return; > + } Are all of these new pr_warn/err()'s really adding much value? They all look pretty generic. It makes me wonder if we should just spit out a generic message in early_memremap() and save all the callers the trouble. Oh, and don't we try to refer to functions() with parenthesis?