Re: [PATCH v7 06/10] ACPI: APEI: GHES: move CXL CPER helpers
Alison Schofield <[email protected]> Tue, 14 Jul 2026 10:33:06 -0700
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.acpica-devel,org.kernel.vger.linux-acpi,org.kernel.vger.linux-cxl,org.kernel.vger.linux-devicetree,org.kernel.vger.linux-doc,org.kernel.vger.linux-edac,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-pci,org.ozlabs.lists.linuxppc-dev |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tue, Jul 14, 2026 at 10:27:01AM +0100, Ahmed Tiba wrote: > On 14/07/2026 03:45, Alison Schofield wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 08, 2026 at 02:59:05PM +0100, Ahmed Tiba wrote: > > > Move the CXL CPER handling paths out of ghes.c and into ghes_cper.c so the > > > helpers can be reused. The code is moved as-is, with the public > > > prototypes updated so GHES keeps calling into the new translation unit. > > > > > > While moving this code, also add CXL CPER section length checks and use > > > spinlock_irqsave() in CXL register/unregister paths for locking > > > consistency. > > > > NAK on moving and changing in the same patch, and esp in a patch > > whose subject only says MOVE. > Hi Alison, > > I understand the concern. > > I kept those changes in 06/10 because they address pre-existing issues > reported specifically against this patch by Sashiko, and I wanted to avoid > carrying known defects forward in the series. I did this following Boris' > feedback to address review-reported issues in-series rather than carry them > forward unchanged. > > I can also add a dedicated "Sashiko findings addressed" section and update > the commit description to state clearly that this patch is not pure move. > > Please advise your preferred way to address Sashiko findings per patch in > this series. I think you can address the Sashiko pre-exists in series without them being hidden in a move patch. To be strictly like Boris seems to be asking (fixes first), do: add CXL CPER section length checks use spinlock_irqsave() in CXL (un-)register paths move CXL CPER helpers -- Alison > > Thanks, > Ahmed