| Message ID | 51ECD3D4.9020405@asianux.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted, archived |
| Commit | dfee0efe3ec8d4099c69e8234e4e4306619b9ba6 |
| Delegated to: | Benjamin Herrenschmidt |
| Headers | show |
On 07/22/2013 12:10 PM, Chen Gang wrote: > Since not need 'max_cpus' after the related commit, the related code > are useless too, need be removed. > > The related commit: > > c1aa687 powerpc: Clean up obsolete code relating to decrementer and timebase > > The related warning: > > arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c:323:43: warning: parameter ‘max_cpus’ set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-parameter] > > Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <gang.chen@asianux.com> This version looks good. Reviewed-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat > --- > arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c | 9 ++------- > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c > index 38b0ba6..7edbd5b 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c > @@ -346,13 +346,8 @@ void __init smp_prepare_cpus(unsigned int max_cpus) > cpumask_set_cpu(boot_cpuid, cpu_sibling_mask(boot_cpuid)); > cpumask_set_cpu(boot_cpuid, cpu_core_mask(boot_cpuid)); > > - if (smp_ops) > - if (smp_ops->probe) > - max_cpus = smp_ops->probe(); > - else > - max_cpus = NR_CPUS; > - else > - max_cpus = 1; > + if (smp_ops && smp_ops->probe) > + smp_ops->probe(); > } > > void smp_prepare_boot_cpu(void) >
On 07/22/2013 02:51 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > On 07/22/2013 12:10 PM, Chen Gang wrote: >> Since not need 'max_cpus' after the related commit, the related code >> are useless too, need be removed. >> >> The related commit: >> >> c1aa687 powerpc: Clean up obsolete code relating to decrementer and timebase >> >> The related warning: >> >> arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c:323:43: warning: parameter ‘max_cpus’ set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-parameter] >> >> Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <gang.chen@asianux.com> > > This version looks good. > > Reviewed-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > Thank you very much. > Regards, > Srivatsa S. Bhat > >> --- >> arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c | 9 ++------- >> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c >> index 38b0ba6..7edbd5b 100644 >> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c >> @@ -346,13 +346,8 @@ void __init smp_prepare_cpus(unsigned int max_cpus) >> cpumask_set_cpu(boot_cpuid, cpu_sibling_mask(boot_cpuid)); >> cpumask_set_cpu(boot_cpuid, cpu_core_mask(boot_cpuid)); >> >> - if (smp_ops) >> - if (smp_ops->probe) >> - max_cpus = smp_ops->probe(); >> - else >> - max_cpus = NR_CPUS; >> - else >> - max_cpus = 1; >> + if (smp_ops && smp_ops->probe) >> + smp_ops->probe(); >> } >> >> void smp_prepare_boot_cpu(void) >> > > > >
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:21:16PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > On 07/22/2013 12:10 PM, Chen Gang wrote: > > Since not need 'max_cpus' after the related commit, the related code > > are useless too, need be removed. > > > > The related commit: > > > > c1aa687 powerpc: Clean up obsolete code relating to decrementer and timebase > > > > The related warning: > > > > arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c:323:43: warning: parameter ‘max_cpus’ set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-parameter] > > > > Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <gang.chen@asianux.com> > > This version looks good. Agreed. A good follow up patch, or actually series of patches, would be to change the prototype of smp_ops->probe() to return void, and fix all the implementations to no longer return anything. cheers
On 07/23/2013 09:44 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:21:16PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: >> On 07/22/2013 12:10 PM, Chen Gang wrote: >>> Since not need 'max_cpus' after the related commit, the related code >>> are useless too, need be removed. >>> >>> The related commit: >>> >>> c1aa687 powerpc: Clean up obsolete code relating to decrementer and timebase >>> >>> The related warning: >>> >>> arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c:323:43: warning: parameter ‘max_cpus’ set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-parameter] >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <gang.chen@asianux.com> >> >> This version looks good. > > Agreed. > > A good follow up patch, or actually series of patches, would be to > change the prototype of smp_ops->probe() to return void, and fix all the > implementations to no longer return anything. > Hmm... normally, a function need have a return value, it will make it more extensible (especially, it is an API which need be implemented in various sub modules). Even though the return value may be useless, now, if the performance is not quite important in our case, I still suggest to have it (especially each various original implementation already has it). > cheers > > Thanks.
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 08:28:07AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: > On 07/23/2013 09:44 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:21:16PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > >> On 07/22/2013 12:10 PM, Chen Gang wrote: > >>> Since not need 'max_cpus' after the related commit, the related code > >>> are useless too, need be removed. > >>> > >>> The related commit: > >>> > >>> c1aa687 powerpc: Clean up obsolete code relating to decrementer and timebase > >>> > >>> The related warning: > >>> > >>> arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c:323:43: warning: parameter ‘max_cpus’ set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-parameter] > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <gang.chen@asianux.com> > >> > >> This version looks good. > > > > Agreed. > > > > A good follow up patch, or actually series of patches, would be to > > change the prototype of smp_ops->probe() to return void, and fix all the > > implementations to no longer return anything. > > > > Hmm... normally, a function need have a return value, it will make it > more extensible (especially, it is an API which need be implemented in > various sub modules). A function doesn't need a return value, and if it needs one in future then we'll add it then. We don't carry code around "just in case". > Even though the return value may be useless, now, if the performance is > not quite important in our case, I still suggest to have it (especially > each various original implementation already has it). It's dead code, it should be removed. cheers
On 07/24/2013 09:16 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 08:28:07AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: >> > On 07/23/2013 09:44 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote: >>> > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:21:16PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: >>>> > >> On 07/22/2013 12:10 PM, Chen Gang wrote: >>>>> > >>> Since not need 'max_cpus' after the related commit, the related code >>>>> > >>> are useless too, need be removed. >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> The related commit: >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> c1aa687 powerpc: Clean up obsolete code relating to decrementer and timebase >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> The related warning: >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c:323:43: warning: parameter ‘max_cpus’ set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-parameter] >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <gang.chen@asianux.com> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> This version looks good. >>> > > >>> > > Agreed. >>> > > >>> > > A good follow up patch, or actually series of patches, would be to >>> > > change the prototype of smp_ops->probe() to return void, and fix all the >>> > > implementations to no longer return anything. >>> > > >> > >> > Hmm... normally, a function need have a return value, it will make it >> > more extensible (especially, it is an API which need be implemented in >> > various sub modules). > A function doesn't need a return value, and if it needs one in future then > we'll add it then. We don't carry code around "just in case". > But for API (also include the internal API), at least, better to always provide the return value which can indicate failure by negative number (if succeed can return the meanness value, e.g. the number of cpus). >> > Even though the return value may be useless, now, if the performance is >> > not quite important in our case, I still suggest to have it (especially >> > each various original implementation already has it). > It's dead code, it should be removed. For API, if not cause the real world issue, better to keep compatible (especially, the return value still can indicate failure by negative number). Thanks.
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:09:33AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: > On 07/24/2013 09:16 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 08:28:07AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: > >> > On 07/23/2013 09:44 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > >>> > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:21:16PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > >>>> > >> On 07/22/2013 12:10 PM, Chen Gang wrote: > >>>>> > >>> Since not need 'max_cpus' after the related commit, the related code > >>>>> > >>> are useless too, need be removed. > >>> > > > >>> > > A good follow up patch, or actually series of patches, would be to > >>> > > change the prototype of smp_ops->probe() to return void, and fix all the > >>> > > implementations to no longer return anything. > >>> > > > >> > > >> > Hmm... normally, a function need have a return value, it will make it > >> > more extensible (especially, it is an API which need be implemented in > >> > various sub modules). > > A function doesn't need a return value, and if it needs one in future then > > we'll add it then. We don't carry code around "just in case". > > But for API (also include the internal API), at least, better to always > provide the return value which can indicate failure by negative number > (if succeed can return the meanness value, e.g. the number of cpus). Are we still talking about this? There is no point returning a value when no one checks it. Which is the case here. For a published API maybe it's a good idea to have a return value "just in case", but this is kernel internal and we own both the implementation and the callers of the API. > >> > Even though the return value may be useless, now, if the performance is > >> > not quite important in our case, I still suggest to have it (especially > >> > each various original implementation already has it). > > It's dead code, it should be removed. > > For API, if not cause the real world issue, better to keep compatible > (especially, the return value still can indicate failure by negative > number). No. Dead code is a real world issue. If we ever need a return value we'll add one then. cheers
On 07/25/2013 11:15 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:09:33AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: >> > On 07/24/2013 09:16 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: >>> > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 08:28:07AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: >>>>> > >> > On 07/23/2013 09:44 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote: >>>>>>> > >>> > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:21:16PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > >> On 07/22/2013 12:10 PM, Chen Gang wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> Since not need 'max_cpus' after the related commit, the related code >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> are useless too, need be removed. >>>>>>> > >>> > > >>>>>>> > >>> > > A good follow up patch, or actually series of patches, would be to >>>>>>> > >>> > > change the prototype of smp_ops->probe() to return void, and fix all the >>>>>>> > >>> > > implementations to no longer return anything. >>>>>>> > >>> > > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > Hmm... normally, a function need have a return value, it will make it >>>>> > >> > more extensible (especially, it is an API which need be implemented in >>>>> > >> > various sub modules). >>> > > A function doesn't need a return value, and if it needs one in future then >>> > > we'll add it then. We don't carry code around "just in case". >> > >> > But for API (also include the internal API), at least, better to always >> > provide the return value which can indicate failure by negative number >> > (if succeed can return the meanness value, e.g. the number of cpus). > Are we still talking about this? > > There is no point returning a value when no one checks it. Which is the > case here. > > For a published API maybe it's a good idea to have a return value "just > in case", but this is kernel internal and we own both the implementation > and the callers of the API. > API is between caller and callee, but independent with who will use it and who will implement it (may be they are the same member), and also independent with whether "between kernel and user" or not. Today, you are really the member for both caller and callee, but in the future, may not. For our case, it is really an API, it is defined in upper level, and implement in various sub modules (extern the declaration and implement in various sub modules). >>>>> > >> > Even though the return value may be useless, now, if the performance is >>>>> > >> > not quite important in our case, I still suggest to have it (especially >>>>> > >> > each various original implementation already has it). >>> > > It's dead code, it should be removed. >> > >> > For API, if not cause the real world issue, better to keep compatible >> > (especially, the return value still can indicate failure by negative >> > number). > No. Dead code is a real world issue. If we ever need a return value > we'll add one then. Hmm... what my original saying "real world issue" is not precise, it need change to: "if it is not an 'urgent' issue (may be a real world issue), for API, need still keep it compatible (keep no touch) now". "dead code for an API" does not belong to 'urgent' issue, it belongs to 'important' issue. When we are reconstructing the source code, we can also remove them in that window (at least, it does not often happen). (although for our case, I don't think "return value for API" is "dead code for an API") Thanks.
On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 13:15 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > But for API (also include the internal API), at least, better to always > > provide the return value which can indicate failure by negative number > > (if succeed can return the meanness value, e.g. the number of cpus). > > Are we still talking about this? > > There is no point returning a value when no one checks it. Which is the > case here. Right. The return value is historical, it dates from when we didn't have cpu_possible_mask etc... Nowadays, the probe() routine is just some early init, and might also affect those masks if needed, the return value has become obsolete. You are welcome to post a patch removing it. Cheers, Ben.
On 07/25/2013 01:16 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 13:15 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: >>> But for API (also include the internal API), at least, better to always >>> provide the return value which can indicate failure by negative number >>> (if succeed can return the meanness value, e.g. the number of cpus). >> >> Are we still talking about this? >> >> There is no point returning a value when no one checks it. Which is the >> case here. > > Right. The return value is historical, it dates from when we didn't have > cpu_possible_mask etc... > > Nowadays, the probe() routine is just some early init, and might also > affect those masks if needed, the return value has become obsolete. > > You are welcome to post a patch removing it. > For an extern function, if the performance is not sensible, better to have the return value which can indicate the failure with the negative number. Thanks.
On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 13:24 +0800, Chen Gang wrote: > For an extern function, if the performance is not sensible, better to > have the return value which can indicate the failure with the negative > number. The return value is meaningless. We don't have a good way to handle it. It has no defined semantics. What does "failure" means in that case ? Nothing ! So just remove it. Ben.
On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 15:51 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 13:24 +0800, Chen Gang wrote: > > For an extern function, if the performance is not sensible, better to > > have the return value which can indicate the failure with the negative > > number. > > The return value is meaningless. > > We don't have a good way to handle it. It has no defined semantics. What > does "failure" means in that case ? Nothing ! > > So just remove it. Note: If you want to create a concept of smp_ops->probe() failing, then not only you need to check all the implementations, but *also* add something sensible to do when it fails ... such as disabling bringup of CPUs. In this case however, we have put the burden of doing whatever makes sense in the probe() function itself. If can adjust the possible map if it fails. Cheers, Ben.
On 07/25/2013 01:51 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 13:24 +0800, Chen Gang wrote: >> For an extern function, if the performance is not sensible, better to >> have the return value which can indicate the failure with the negative >> number. > > The return value is meaningless. > > We don't have a good way to handle it. It has no defined semantics. What > does "failure" means in that case ? Nothing ! > > So just remove it. > Hmm... for an extern function (espeically have been implemented in various modules), normally, we can assume it may fail in some cases (although now, we don't know what cases can cause its failure). If "we don't have a good way to handle the failure", "print the related warning message" is an executable choice (or "BUG_ON()", if it is critical). So, if the performance is not sensible, I still suggest to let extern function have return value. Thanks.
On 07/25/2013 02:03 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 15:51 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >> On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 13:24 +0800, Chen Gang wrote: >>> For an extern function, if the performance is not sensible, better to >>> have the return value which can indicate the failure with the negative >>> number. >> >> The return value is meaningless. >> >> We don't have a good way to handle it. It has no defined semantics. What >> does "failure" means in that case ? Nothing ! >> >> So just remove it. > > Note: If you want to create a concept of smp_ops->probe() failing, then > not only you need to check all the implementations, but *also* add > something sensible to do when it fails ... such as disabling bringup of > CPUs. > Hmm... if critical, use BUG(), else (none critical), just print a warning message ? > In this case however, we have put the burden of doing whatever makes > sense in the probe() function itself. If can adjust the possible map if > it fails. > Excuse me, my English is not quite well, I guss your meaning is: "it can be fail in internal implementation, but has no effect with the final result to caller", is it correct ? If what I understand is correct, it needn't let caller know about it. Thanks.
On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 14:17 +0800, Chen Gang wrote: > > Hmm... for an extern function (espeically have been implemented in > various modules), normally, we can assume it may fail in some cases > (although now, we don't know what cases can cause its failure). > > If "we don't have a good way to handle the failure", "print the related > warning message" is an executable choice (or "BUG_ON()", if it is critical). > > So, if the performance is not sensible, I still suggest to let extern > function have return value. This is not a module function. We are not doing a uni course on how to write C code here. Be real. Ben.
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c index 38b0ba6..7edbd5b 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c @@ -346,13 +346,8 @@ void __init smp_prepare_cpus(unsigned int max_cpus) cpumask_set_cpu(boot_cpuid, cpu_sibling_mask(boot_cpuid)); cpumask_set_cpu(boot_cpuid, cpu_core_mask(boot_cpuid)); - if (smp_ops) - if (smp_ops->probe) - max_cpus = smp_ops->probe(); - else - max_cpus = NR_CPUS; - else - max_cpus = 1; + if (smp_ops && smp_ops->probe) + smp_ops->probe(); } void smp_prepare_boot_cpu(void)
Since not need 'max_cpus' after the related commit, the related code are useless too, need be removed. The related commit: c1aa687 powerpc: Clean up obsolete code relating to decrementer and timebase The related warning: arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c:323:43: warning: parameter ‘max_cpus’ set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-parameter] Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <gang.chen@asianux.com> --- arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c | 9 ++------- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)