On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 09:37:02AM -0500, Bowman, Terry wrote:
>
>
> On 6/4/2025 1:01 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 12:22:26PM -0500, Terry Bowman wrote:
> >> +static struct work_struct cxl_prot_err_work;
> >> +static DECLARE_WORK(cxl_prot_err_work, cxl_prot_err_work_fn);
> >> +
> >> int cxl_ras_init(void)
> >> {
> >> - return cxl_cper_register_prot_err_work(&cxl_cper_prot_err_work);
> >> + int rc;
> >> +
> >> + rc = cxl_cper_register_prot_err_work(&cxl_cper_prot_err_work);
> >> + if (rc)
> >> + pr_err("Failed to register CPER AER kfifo (%x)", rc);
> > This shouldn't return rc;?
>
> This was implemented to allow for native CXL handling initialization even if
> FW-first (CPER) initialization fails. This can be changed to return rc.
No no. I'm fine with it either way so long as it's deliberate. But
maybe add a comment if we can continue.
rc = cxl_cper_register_prot_err_work(&cxl_cper_prot_err_work);
if (rc) {
pr_err("Failed to register CPER AER kfifo (%x)", rc);
/* Continuing regardless. Thanks. */
}
rc = cxl_register_prot_err_work(&cxl_prot_err_work);
regards,
dan carpenter
