[PATCH 9/9] ARM: kernel: add outer cache support for cacheinfo implementation

[Sudeep Holla]

Hi Russell,

On 25/06/14 23:37, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 06:30:44PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c b/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c
>> index efc5cab..30ca151 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c
>> @@ -105,6 +105,15 @@ static inline void l2c_unlock(void __iomem *base, unsigned num)
>>   	}
>>   }
>>
>> +static void l2x0_getinfo(struct outer_cache_info *info)
>> +{
>> +	if (!info)
>> +		return;
>
> Pointless NULL test.  If someone passes NULL to this function (which
> you never do in this file) then we want to know about it because _that_
> is a kernel bug - it is invalid to pass NULL.  Hence the kernel should
> oops.
>
> Please, don't go around adding stupid NULL tests for conditions which
> should _never_ happen, instead, rely on the kernel to oops if these
> invalid conditions occur.  That's why we produce a backtrace from such
> events, to allow invalid conditions to be debugged and fixed.
>
> Having stuff silently ignore in this way does not detect these bugs so
> they go by unnoticed.
>
> Take a moment to read some of the fs/ or kernel/ code, and you'll find
> a lack of NULL checks in there.  That's what gives that code performance,
> because it's not spending its time doing loads of useless NULL checks.
>

Understood, will get rid of it.

>> @@ -894,6 +903,7 @@ static void __init __l2c_init(const struct l2c_init_data *data,
>>   		data->enable(l2x0_base, aux, data->num_lock);
>>
>>   	outer_cache = fns;
>> +	outer_cache.get_info = l2x0_getinfo;
>
> NAK.  Think about it.
>

Ah, will specify in l2c_init_data for individual implementations so that
fixups is possible if needed for get_info. Sorry for missing this.

Regards,
Sudeep