| Message ID | 1455493946-27967-1-git-send-email-gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
On 15/02/16 10:52, Gavin Shan wrote: > When eeh_dump_pe_log() is called in eeh_slot_error_detail(), we > already have the check that the PE isn't in PCI config blocked > state. So we needn't the duplicated check in eeh_dump_pe_log(). > > This removes the duplicated check in eeh_dump_pe_log(). > > Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> eeh_dump_pe_log() isn't called anywhere outside of eeh_slot_error_detail(), so this should have no functional change. Reviewed-by: Andrew Donnellan <andrew.donnellan@au1.ibm.com>
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 02:25:53PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote: >On 15/02/16 10:52, Gavin Shan wrote: >>When eeh_dump_pe_log() is called in eeh_slot_error_detail(), we >>already have the check that the PE isn't in PCI config blocked >>state. So we needn't the duplicated check in eeh_dump_pe_log(). >> >>This removes the duplicated check in eeh_dump_pe_log(). >> >>Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > >eeh_dump_pe_log() isn't called anywhere outside of eeh_slot_error_detail(), >so this should have no functional change. > >Reviewed-by: Andrew Donnellan <andrew.donnellan@au1.ibm.com> > Thanks for review. Do you want to see revised patch to include your comments? Thanks, Gavin >-- >Andrew Donnellan Software Engineer, OzLabs >andrew.donnellan@au1.ibm.com Australia Development Lab, Canberra >+61 2 6201 8874 (work) IBM Australia Limited
On 16/02/16 10:30, Gavin Shan wrote: > Thanks for review. Do you want to see revised patch to include your > comments? Not particularly - the comments were just detailing what I went through as I reviewed it. Feel free to include it if you feel it makes the description clearer, but I don't really care.
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:58:20AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote: >On 16/02/16 10:30, Gavin Shan wrote: >>Thanks for review. Do you want to see revised patch to include your >>comments? > >Not particularly - the comments were just detailing what I went through as I >reviewed it. Feel free to include it if you feel it makes the description >clearer, but I don't really care. > I think it's always worthy to have better commit log, v2 will be sent shortly to have improved commit log, thanks for review. Thanks, Gavin >-- >Andrew Donnellan Software Engineer, OzLabs >andrew.donnellan@au1.ibm.com Australia Development Lab, Canberra >+61 2 6201 8874 (work) IBM Australia Limited
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c index 8c6005c..46b41be 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c @@ -268,13 +268,6 @@ static void *eeh_dump_pe_log(void *data, void *flag) struct eeh_dev *edev, *tmp; size_t *plen = flag; - /* If the PE's config space is blocked, 0xFF's will be - * returned. It's pointless to collect the log in this - * case. - */ - if (pe->state & EEH_PE_CFG_BLOCKED) - return NULL; - eeh_pe_for_each_dev(pe, edev, tmp) *plen += eeh_dump_dev_log(edev, pci_regs_buf + *plen, EEH_PCI_REGS_LOG_LEN - *plen);
When eeh_dump_pe_log() is called in eeh_slot_error_detail(), we already have the check that the PE isn't in PCI config blocked state. So we needn't the duplicated check in eeh_dump_pe_log(). This removes the duplicated check in eeh_dump_pe_log(). Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> --- arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c | 7 ------- 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)