Re: [PATCH v5] cper, apei, mce: Pass x86 CPER through the MCA handling chain

[Smita Koralahalli Channabasappa]

Punit,

On 11/9/20 1:05 PM, Smita Koralahalli Channabasappa wrote:

> On 11/8/20 7:18 PM, Punit Agrawal wrote:
> > Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > > On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 02:36:46PM +0900, Punit Agrawal wrote:
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/cper-x86.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/cper-x86.c
> > > > > index 2531de49f56c..438ed9eff6d0 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/cper-x86.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/cper-x86.c
> > > > > @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
> > > > >    // Copyright (C) 2018, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
> > > > >      #include <linux/cper.h>
> > > > > +#include <linux/acpi.h>
> > > > Did you mean to include <asm/acpi.h>?
> > > Why?
> > Because arch_apei_report_x86_error() used in the patch is defined
> > there. The indirect include works but pulls in additional definitions
> > not needed by the patch.
> >
> > Do you prefer the more generic include?
> I agree, it's generally a good practice to avoid pulling up additional
> definitions. I had this when I made the declaration in generic header
> file and may be I did not consider it changing initially as my build
> didn't break after moving the declaration from generic header to arch
> specific header file.
> I will take care henceforth and make the changes as required.

The asm specific include throws out a warning when I run checkpatch.pl

WARNING: Use #include <linux/acpi.h> instead of <asm/acpi.h>
#215: FILE: drivers/firmware/efi/cper-x86.c:5:
+#include <asm/acpi.h>

Should I just keep the generic include?

Thanks,
Smita