[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [RFC v2 3/8] xen/arm: Export host device-tree to hypfs
On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 12:17:17PM +0000, Julien Grall wrote: > > > > +static HYPFS_DIR_INIT_FUNC(host_dt_dir, HOST_DT_DIR, > > > > &host_dt_dir_funcs); > > > > + > > > > +static int __init host_dtb_export_init(void) > > > > +{ > > > > + ASSERT(dt_host && (dt_host->sibling == NULL)); > > > > > > dt_host can be NULL when booting on ACPI platform. So I think this wants > > > to > > > be turned to a normal check and return directly. > > > > > > > I will replace if with > > if ( !acpi_disabled ) > > return -ENODEV; > > > > > Also could you explain why you need to check dt_host->sibling? > > > > > > > This is my way to check if dt_host points to the top of the device-tree. > > In any case I will replace it with !acpi_disabled as I mentioned > > earlier. > > dt_host will always points to the root of the host device-tree. I don't > think it is the job of hypfs to enforce it unless you expect the code to be > buggy if this happens. But then I would argue the code should be hardened. > Hi Julien, Unfortunatelly I can't use acpi_disabled in host_dtb_export_init because I've already moved host_dtb_export.c to the common folder. As for the host->sibling - I took the whole assert: ASSERT(dt_host && (dt_host->sibling == NULL)); from the prepare_dtb_hwdom function. And this assertion was added by the commit b8f1c5e7039efbe1103ed3fe4caedf8c34affe13 authored by you. What do you think if I omit dt_host->sibling check and make it: if ( !dt_host ) return -ENODEV; Best regards, Olkesii.
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |