Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1654582 > unrolled thread

[PATCH v2 2/5] ACPI / APEI: Switch to use new generic UUID API

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  [PATCH v2 2/5] ACPI / APEI: Switch to use new generic UUID API Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> - 2017-05-31 21:50 +0200
    Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 2/5] ACPI / APEI: Switch to use new generic  UUID API Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> - 2017-06-01 12:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] ACPI / APEI: Switch to use new generic UUID API Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> - 2017-06-05 18:10 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] ACPI / APEI: Switch to use new generic UUID API Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> - 2017-06-05 18:40 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] ACPI / APEI: Switch to use new generic UUID API Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> - 2017-06-05 19:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] ACPI / APEI: Switch to use new generic UUID API Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> - 2017-06-05 19:30 +0200

#1654582 — [PATCH v2 2/5] ACPI / APEI: Switch to use new generic UUID API

There are new types and helpers that are supposed to be used in new code.

As a preparation to get rid of legacy types and API functions do
the conversion here.

Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
---
 drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c b/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c
index d0855c09f32f..084414a4c5b8 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c
@@ -431,12 +431,13 @@ static void ghes_do_proc(struct ghes *ghes,
 {
 	int sev, sec_sev;
 	struct acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata;
+	guid_t *sec_type;
 
 	sev = ghes_severity(estatus->error_severity);
 	apei_estatus_for_each_section(estatus, gdata) {
+		sec_type = (guid_t *)gdata->section_type;
 		sec_sev = ghes_severity(gdata->error_severity);
-		if (!uuid_le_cmp(*(uuid_le *)gdata->section_type,
-				 CPER_SEC_PLATFORM_MEM)) {
+		if (!guid_equal(sec_type, &CPER_SEC_PLATFORM_MEM)) {
 			struct cper_sec_mem_err *mem_err;
 			mem_err = (struct cper_sec_mem_err *)(gdata+1);
 			ghes_edac_report_mem_error(ghes, sev, mem_err);
@@ -445,8 +446,7 @@ static void ghes_do_proc(struct ghes *ghes,
 			ghes_handle_memory_failure(gdata, sev);
 		}
 #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_PCIEAER
-		else if (!uuid_le_cmp(*(uuid_le *)gdata->section_type,
-				      CPER_SEC_PCIE)) {
+		else if (!guid_equal(sec_type, &CPER_SEC_PCIE)) {
 			struct cper_sec_pcie *pcie_err;
 			pcie_err = (struct cper_sec_pcie *)(gdata+1);
 			if (sev == GHES_SEV_RECOVERABLE &&
-- 
2.11.0

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1654977 — Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 2/5] ACPI / APEI: Switch to use new generic UUID API

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:56 AM, kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> [auto build test ERROR on pm/linux-next]
> [also build test ERROR on v4.12-rc3 next-20170531]
> [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system]

Dropped ahead. As cover letter says it is based on top of uuid tree.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1657694

> -		if (!uuid_le_cmp(*(uuid_le *)gdata->section_type,
> -				 CPER_SEC_PLATFORM_MEM)) {
> +		if (!guid_equal(sec_type, &CPER_SEC_PLATFORM_MEM)) {

The "!" here seems incorrect.

>  #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_PCIEAER
> -		else if (!uuid_le_cmp(*(uuid_le *)gdata->section_type,
> -				      CPER_SEC_PCIE)) {
> +		else if (!guid_equal(sec_type, &CPER_SEC_PCIE)) {

Same here.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1657817

On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 18:22 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 07:19:43PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Thanks!
> > Are you going to fixup when applying or better me to send an updated
> > version?
> 
> I'd prefer a resend so that all the maintainers can carefully re-
> review
> the patches.

I'm on it.
Thanks for review.

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1658011

On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 07:19:43PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Thanks!
> Are you going to fixup when applying or better me to send an updated
> version?

I'd prefer a resend so that all the maintainers can carefully re-review
the patches.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1658015

On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 18:01 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > -		if (!uuid_le_cmp(*(uuid_le *)gdata->section_type,
> > -				 CPER_SEC_PLATFORM_MEM)) {
> > +		if (!guid_equal(sec_type, &CPER_SEC_PLATFORM_MEM))
> > {
> 
> The "!" here seems incorrect.
> 
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_PCIEAER
> > -		else if (!uuid_le_cmp(*(uuid_le *)gdata-
> > >section_type,
> > -				      CPER_SEC_PCIE)) {
> > +		else if (!guid_equal(sec_type, &CPER_SEC_PCIE)) {
> 
> Same here.

Thanks!
Are you going to fixup when applying or better me to send an updated
version?

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web