On 6/4/2025 12:24 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> 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
>
Good idea. I made the change as you recommended.
Terry
