Re: [PATCH 2/5] acpi/numa: check if parsing acpi numa info disabled earlier

[David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>]

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013, liguang wrote:

> Signed-off-by: liguang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>

Because there's no changelog, I have to read the patch to figure out what 
it's doing since the title isn't that helpful either.  Please provide a 
description of what problem you're trying to fix or what improvement 
you're trying to make so it's clear.

> ---
>  arch/x86/mm/srat.c  |    6 ------
>  drivers/acpi/numa.c |    2 ++
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/srat.c b/arch/x86/mm/srat.c
> index a837c95..78c67bd 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/srat.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/srat.c
> @@ -60,8 +60,6 @@ acpi_numa_x2apic_affinity_init(struct acpi_srat_x2apic_cpu_affinity *pa)
>  	int pxm, node;
>  	int apic_id;
>  
> -	if (srat_disabled())
> -		return;
>  	if (pa->header.length < sizeof(struct acpi_srat_x2apic_cpu_affinity)) {
>  		bad_srat();
>  		return;
> @@ -100,8 +98,6 @@ acpi_numa_processor_affinity_init(struct acpi_srat_cpu_affinity *pa)
>  	int pxm, node;
>  	int apic_id;
>  
> -	if (srat_disabled())
> -		return;
>  	if (pa->header.length != sizeof(struct acpi_srat_cpu_affinity)) {
>  		bad_srat();
>  		return;
> @@ -148,8 +144,6 @@ acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init(struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity *ma)
>  	u64 start, end;
>  	int node, pxm;
>  
> -	if (srat_disabled())
> -		return -1;
>  	if (ma->header.length != sizeof(struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity)) {
>  		bad_srat();
>  		return -1;
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/numa.c b/drivers/acpi/numa.c
> index cb31298..1f51222 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/numa.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/numa.c
> @@ -262,6 +262,8 @@ static int __init acpi_parse_srat(struct acpi_table_header *table)
>  	struct acpi_table_srat *srat;
>  	if (!table)
>  		return -EINVAL;
> +	if (srat_disabled())
> +		return -EACCES;
>  
>  	srat = (struct acpi_table_srat *)table;
>  	acpi_srat_revision = srat->header.revision;

Nack, this isn't helpful since SRAT is only for x86 and other 
architectures use this code.  It would break the build on ia64 since it's 
obviously not going to have a function called srat_disabled().

And -EACCES would not be the appropriate return value, this has nothing to 
do with permissions.