[PATCH -next] cacheinfo: Correctly handle new acpi_get_cache_info() prototype

[Conor Dooley]

Hey!

On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 01:34:46PM +0100, Pierre Gondois wrote:
> commit bd500361a937 ("ACPI: PPTT: Update acpi_find_last_cache_level()
> to acpi_get_cache_info()")
> updates the function acpi_get_cache_info().
> 
> If CONFIG_ACPI_PPTT is not defined, acpi_get_cache_info() doesn't
> update its *levels and *split_levels parameters and returns 0.
> This can lead to a faulty behaviour.
> 
> Make acpi_get_cache_info() return an error code if CONFIG_ACPI_PPTT
> is not defined. Initialize levels and split_levels before passing
> their address to acpi_get_cache_info().
> 
> Also, in init_cache_level():

Hmm...

> - commit e75d18cecbb3 ("arm64: cacheinfo: Fix incorrect
>   assignment of signed error value to unsigned fw_level")
>   checks the fw_level value in init_cache_level() in case
>   the value is negative. Remove this check as the error code
>   is not returned through fw_level anymore.
> - if no PPTT is present or CONFIG_ACPI_PPTT is not defined,
>   it is still possible to use the cache information from clidr_el1.
>   Instead of aborting if acpi_get_cache_info() returns an error
>   code, just continue.

To be honest, these feel like entirely separate things that should be
in different patches. You've got:
- Dan's smatch fixes
- a redundant check being removed
- a behaviour change for if acpi_get_cache_info() returns an error

> Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <error27 at gmail.com>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp at intel.com>

How about Link: to the LKP/Dan's report?
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y86iruJPuwNN7rZw@kili/

I did a quick check but didn't don't see the LKP report...

Also a Fixes: tag too, no?

Thanks,
Conor.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20230124/ee2b9941/attachment.sig>