On 11/25/2014 05:07 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 22:33 +0000, Grant Likely wrote:
>> The OF_RECONFIG notifier callback uses a different structure depending
>> on whether it is a node change or a property change. This is silly, and
>> not very safe. Rework the code to use the same data structure regardless
>> of the type of notifier.
>
> I fell pretty good about this one except...
>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
>> index b9d1dfdbe5bb..9fe6002c1d5a 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
>> @@ -1711,12 +1711,11 @@ static void stage_topology_update(int core_id)
>> static int dt_update_callback(struct notifier_block *nb,
>> unsigned long action, void *data)
>> {
>> - struct of_prop_reconfig *update;
>> + struct of_reconfig_data *update = data;
>> int rc = NOTIFY_DONE;
>>
>> switch (action) {
>> case OF_RECONFIG_UPDATE_PROPERTY:
>> - update = (struct of_prop_reconfig *)data;
>
> Should we assert/bug on !update->dn / update->prop ?
>
> (Same for the rest of the patch)
>
> Or do you reckon it's pointless ?
>
I'm not sure it's worth it, if those are NULL pointers the drivers/of
code would have tried to use them before invoking the notifier chain.
We won't make it this far if they're NULL.
Otherwise the patch looks good to me,
Reviewed-by: Nathan Fontenot <nf...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
-Nathan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
