Re: [GIT PULL] x86/platform updates for v5.10

[Mike Travis]

On 10/12/2020 2:42 PM, Mike Travis wrote:
> On 10/12/2020 2:27 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 02:15:55PM -0700, Mike Travis wrote:
> > > > Of course, it also looks like that 'uvh_nmi_mmrx_mask' thing is a
> > > > write-only variable so it doesn't matter, but can we _please_ get this
> > > > code fixed ASAP?
> > >
> > > Yes, I'll look at it right now.  Thanks.
> >
> > As this variable is write-only you could simply zap it now with a patch
> > ontop to fix the build and then introduce it properly later, when you
> > really need it?
>
> It should have been an unsigned long instead of an int as Linus 
> suggested.  I'm not sure it's a write only variable as I think the mask 
> is used to check if the interrupt occurred (I'll have to look closer). 
> I'm trying now to send the fixed patch.  It only has this change:
>
> dog 74> diff -u patches/uv5_update_nmi{.v1,}
> --- patches/uv5_update_nmi.v1   2020-10-12 16:30:06.083941459 -0500
> +++ patches/uv5_update_nmi      2020-10-12 16:30:46.663903731 -0500
> @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@
>   +static unsigned long uvh_nmi_mmrx;            /* 
> UVH_EVENT_OCCURRED0/1 */
>   +static unsigned long uvh_nmi_mmrx_clear;      /* 
> UVH_EVENT_OCCURRED0/1_ALIAS */
>   +static int uvh_nmi_mmrx_shift;                        /* 
> UVH_EVENT_OCCURRED0/1_EXTIO_INT0_SHFT */
> -+static int uvh_nmi_mmrx_mask;                 /* 
> UVH_EVENT_OCCURRED0/1_EXTIO_INT0_MASK */
> ++static unsigned long uvh_nmi_mmrx_mask;               /* 
> UVH_EVENT_OCCURRED0/1_EXTIO_INT0_MASK */
>   +static char *uvh_nmi_mmrx_type;                       /* "EXTIO_INT0" */
>   +
>   +/* Non-zero indicates newer SMM NMI handler present */
>
> (or quoted)
>
> > dog 74> diff -u patches/uv5_update_nmi{.v1,}
> > --- patches/uv5_update_nmi.v1   2020-10-12 16:30:06.083941459 -0500
> > +++ patches/uv5_update_nmi      2020-10-12 16:30:46.663903731 -0500
> > @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@
> >  +static unsigned long uvh_nmi_mmrx;            /* 
> > UVH_EVENT_OCCURRED0/1 */
> >  +static unsigned long uvh_nmi_mmrx_clear;      /* 
> > UVH_EVENT_OCCURRED0/1_ALIAS */
> >  +static int uvh_nmi_mmrx_shift;                        /* 
> > UVH_EVENT_OCCURRED0/1_EXTIO_INT0_SHFT */
> > -+static int uvh_nmi_mmrx_mask;                 /* 
> > UVH_EVENT_OCCURRED0/1_EXTIO_INT0_MASK */
> > ++static unsigned long uvh_nmi_mmrx_mask;               /* 
> > UVH_EVENT_OCCURRED0/1_EXTIO_INT0_MASK */
> >  +static char *uvh_nmi_mmrx_type;                       /* 
> > "EXTIO_INT0" */
> >  +
> >  +/* Non-zero indicates newer SMM NMI handler present */

I was in the process of tracing it through and perhaps it does need a 
bit more analysis to be correct.  What does it mean to send a patch to 
fix the compile error, just remove it?