On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 05:39:27PM +1000, Russell Currey wrote: >Remove unnecessary tags in eeh_handle_normal_event(), and add function >comments for eeh_handle_normal_event() and eeh_handle_special_event(). > >The only functional difference is that in the case of a PE reaching the >maximum number of failures, rather than one message telling you of this >and suggesting you reseat the device, there are two separate messages. > >Suggested-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <a...@ozlabs.ru> >Signed-off-by: Russell Currey <rus...@russell.cc> >--- >V3: new. Thanks to Alexey for the suggestions. >--- > arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh_driver.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > >diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh_driver.c >b/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh_driver.c >index e50d1470714f..c405c79e50cd 100644 >--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh_driver.c >+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh_driver.c >@@ -724,6 +724,15 @@ static int eeh_reset_device(struct eeh_pe *pe, struct >pci_bus *bus, > */ > #define MAX_WAIT_FOR_RECOVERY 300 > >+/** >+ * eeh_handle_normal_event - Handle EEH events on a specific PE >+ * @pe: EEH PE >+ * >+ * Attempts to recover the given PE. If recovery fails or the PE has failed >+ * too many times, remove the PE. >+ * >+ * Returns true if @pe should no longer be used, else false. >+ */
I think this bit of comments would be part of PATCH[1/2]? Also, the comments needn't to be in any document as it's static one. I guess you might not want it to show in stable branches as PATCH[1/2] has been tagged as stable. It's fine if that's the case. > static bool eeh_handle_normal_event(struct eeh_pe *pe) > { > struct pci_bus *frozen_bus; >@@ -741,8 +750,13 @@ static bool eeh_handle_normal_event(struct eeh_pe *pe) > > eeh_pe_update_time_stamp(pe); > pe->freeze_count++; >- if (pe->freeze_count > eeh_max_freezes) >- goto excess_failures; >+ if (pe->freeze_count > eeh_max_freezes) { >+ pr_err("EEH: PHB#%x-PE#%x has failed %d times in the\n" >+ "last hour and has been permanently disabled.\n", >+ pe->phb->global_number, pe->addr, >+ pe->freeze_count); >+ goto hard_fail; >+ } > pr_warn("EEH: This PCI device has failed %d times in the last hour\n", > pe->freeze_count); > >@@ -872,25 +886,16 @@ static bool eeh_handle_normal_event(struct eeh_pe *pe) > > return false; > >-excess_failures: >+hard_fail: > /* > * About 90% of all real-life EEH failures in the field > * are due to poorly seated PCI cards. Only 10% or so are > * due to actual, failed cards. > */ This bit of comments apply to "excess_failures" only, so it would be moved together with the pr_err(). Frankly speaking, I don't see the benebit of the cleanup. "excess_failure" in the original code indicates the case (excessive failures) explicitly, which is nice. However, it's not a big deal. >- pr_err("EEH: PHB#%x-PE#%x has failed %d times in the\n" >- "last hour and has been permanently disabled.\n" >- "Please try reseating or replacing it.\n", >- pe->phb->global_number, pe->addr, >- pe->freeze_count); >- goto perm_error; >- >-hard_fail: > pr_err("EEH: Unable to recover from failure from PHB#%x-PE#%x.\n" > "Please try reseating or replacing it\n", > pe->phb->global_number, pe->addr); > >-perm_error: We will have the message from above pr_err() for "perm_error" case, but we don't have that in original code. > eeh_slot_error_detail(pe, EEH_LOG_PERM); > > /* Notify all devices that they're about to go down. */ >@@ -923,6 +928,13 @@ static bool eeh_handle_normal_event(struct eeh_pe *pe) > return false; > } > >+/** >+ * eeh_handle_special_event - Handle EEH events without a specific failing PE >+ * >+ * Called when an EEH event is detected but can't be narrowed down to a >+ * specific PE. Iterates through possible failures and handles them as >+ * necessary. >+ */ > static void eeh_handle_special_event(void) > { > struct eeh_pe *pe, *phb_pe; Thanks, Gavin