Re: [PATCH v3 05/12] powerpc/drmem: make lmb walk a bit more flexible

[Thiago Jung Bauermann]

Hari Bathini <hbathini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On 15/07/20 9:20 am, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
>> 
>> Hari Bathini <hbathini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> 
>>> @@ -534,7 +537,7 @@ static int __init early_init_dt_scan_memory_ppc(unsigned long node,
>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_PPC_PSERIES
>>>  	if (depth == 1 &&
>>>  	    strcmp(uname, "ibm,dynamic-reconfiguration-memory") == 0) {
>>> -		walk_drmem_lmbs_early(node, early_init_drmem_lmb);
>>> +		walk_drmem_lmbs_early(node, NULL, early_init_drmem_lmb);
>> 
>> walk_drmem_lmbs_early() can now fail. Should this failure be propagated
>> as a return value of early_init_dt_scan_memory_ppc()?
>   
>> 
>>>  		return 0;
>>>  	}
>>>  #endif
>> <snip>
>> 
>>> @@ -787,7 +790,7 @@ static int __init parse_numa_properties(void)
>>>  	 */
>>>  	memory = of_find_node_by_path("/ibm,dynamic-reconfiguration-memory");
>>>  	if (memory) {
>>> -		walk_drmem_lmbs(memory, numa_setup_drmem_lmb);
>>> +		walk_drmem_lmbs(memory, NULL, numa_setup_drmem_lmb);
>> 
>> Similarly here. Now that this call can fail, should
>> parse_numa_properties() handle or propagate the failure?
>
> They would still not fail unless the callbacks early_init_drmem_lmb() & numa_setup_drmem_lmb()
> are updated to have failure scenarios. Also, these call sites always ignored failure scenarios
> even before walk_drmem_lmbs() was introduced. So, I prefer to keep them the way they are?

Ok, makes sense. In this case:

Reviewed-by: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

-- 
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center