On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 01:28:21PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> On 4/15/21 7:16 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Parse to and export from UUID own type, before dereferencing.
> > This also fixes wrong comment (Little Endian UUID is something else)
> > and should fix Sparse warnings about assigning strict types to POD.
> >
> > Fixes: 43001c52b603 ("powerpc/papr_scm: Use ibm,unit-guid as the iset
> > cookie")
> > Fixes: 259a948c4ba1 ("powerpc/pseries/scm: Use a specific endian format for
> > storing uuid from the device tree")
> > Cc: Oliver O'Halloran <ooh...@gmail.com>
> > Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.ku...@linux.ibm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > Not tested
> > arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c | 13 ++++++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c
> > b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c
> > index ae6f5d80d5ce..4366e1902890 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c
> > @@ -1085,8 +1085,9 @@ static int papr_scm_probe(struct platform_device
> > *pdev)
> > u32 drc_index, metadata_size;
> > u64 blocks, block_size;
> > struct papr_scm_priv *p;
> > + u8 uuid_raw[UUID_SIZE];
> > const char *uuid_str;
> > - u64 uuid[2];
> > + uuid_t uuid;
> > int rc;
> > /* check we have all the required DT properties */
> > @@ -1129,16 +1130,18 @@ static int papr_scm_probe(struct platform_device
> > *pdev)
> > p->hcall_flush_required = of_property_read_bool(dn,
> > "ibm,hcall-flush-required");
> > /* We just need to ensure that set cookies are unique across */
> > - uuid_parse(uuid_str, (uuid_t *) uuid);
> > + uuid_parse(uuid_str, &uuid);
> > +
> > /*
> > * cookie1 and cookie2 are not really little endian
> > - * we store a little endian representation of the
> > + * we store a raw buffer representation of the
> > * uuid str so that we can compare this with the label
> > * area cookie irrespective of the endian config with which
> > * the kernel is built.
> > */
> > - p->nd_set.cookie1 = cpu_to_le64(uuid[0]);
> > - p->nd_set.cookie2 = cpu_to_le64(uuid[1]);
> > + export_uuid(uuid_raw, &uuid);
> > + p->nd_set.cookie1 = get_unaligned_le64(&uuid_raw[0]);
> > + p->nd_set.cookie2 = get_unaligned_le64(&uuid_raw[8]);
>
> ok that does the equivalent of cpu_to_le64 there. So we are good. But the
> comment update is missing the details why we did that get_unaligned_le64.
> Maybe raw buffer representation is the correct term?
> Should we add an example in the comment. ie,
> /*
> * Historically we stored the cookie in the below format.
> for a uuid str 72511b67-0b3b-42fd-8d1d-5be3cae8bcaa
> cookie1 was 0xfd423b0b671b5172 cookie2 was 0xaabce8cae35b1d8d
> */
I'm fine with the comment. At least it will shed a light on the byte ordering
we are expecting.
> > /* might be zero */
> > p->metadata_size = metadata_size;
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
