RE: [PATCH v2 3/6] EDAC/amd64: Use a macro for iterating over Unified Memory Controllers

[Ghannam, Yazen]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-edac-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <linux-edac-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Borislav Petkov
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 3:53 PM
> To: Ghannam, Yazen <Yazen.Ghannam@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: linux-edac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] EDAC/amd64: Use a macro for iterating over Unified Memory Controllers
> 
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 05:25:46PM +0000, Ghannam, Yazen wrote:
> > From: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > Define and use a macro for looping over the number of Unified Memory
> > Controllers.
> >
> > No functional change.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Link:
> > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190219202536.15462-2-Yazen.Ghannam@xxxxxxx
> >
> > v1->v2:
> > * New in V2. Please see comment on Patch 2 V1 at link above.
> >
> >  drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c | 17 ++++++++++-------
> >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c b/drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c
> > index 0038fcb0b010..c82aafb7246a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c
> > +++ b/drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c
> > @@ -449,6 +449,9 @@ static void get_cs_base_and_mask(struct amd64_pvt *pvt, int csrow, u8 dct,
> >  #define for_each_chip_select_mask(i, dct, pvt) \
> >  	for (i = 0; i < pvt->csels[dct].m_cnt; i++)
> >
> > +#define for_each_umc(i) \
> > +	for (i = 0; i < num_umcs; i++)
> > +
> >  /*
> >   * @input_addr is an InputAddr associated with the node given by mci. Return the
> >   * csrow that input_addr maps to, or -1 on failure (no csrow claims input_addr).
> > @@ -722,7 +725,7 @@ static unsigned long determine_edac_cap(struct amd64_pvt *pvt)
> >  	if (pvt->umc) {
> >  		u8 i, umc_en_mask = 0, dimm_ecc_en_mask = 0;
> >
> > -		for (i = 0; i < num_umcs; i++) {
> > +		for_each_umc(i) {
> 
> Hmm, maybe I didn't express myself as clearly as I should have, before.
> Sorry about that.
> 
> But if you sort the patches this way:
> 
> 1. Add for_each_umc() and convert code to use it
> 2. add num_umcs and convert for_each_umc() to use it
> 
> You won't have to touch the loops twice in patches 2 and 3 and your
> diffstat will be a lot smaller.
> 
> Makes sense?
> 

Yep, makes sense.

I can send out another version soon. Do you have any comments on the other patches?

Thanks,
Yazen