Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1383343
| From | Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] arm64: cpufeature: Add scope for capability check |
| Date | 2016-04-20 14:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rpZAe-7Uv-17@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <rpkno-ht-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <rpknq-ht-63@gated-at.bofh.it> <rpYuv-75L-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 20/04/16 12:28, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 05:35:30PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>> Add scope parameter to the arm64_cpu_capabilities::matches(), so that
>> this can be reused for checking the capability on a given CPU vs the
>> system wide. The system uses the default scope associated with the
>> capability for initialising the CPU_HWCAPs and ELF_HWCAPs.
>> +/* scope of capability check */
>> +enum {
>> + SCOPE_SYSTEM,
>> + SCOPE_CPU,
>> +};
>
> I think I actually prefer the GLOBAL/LOCAL naming, since SYSTEM is going
> to be the scope you want when talking about all CPUs. Or maybe just
> rename SCOPE_CPU to SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU.
OK
>
> We might want a preemptible() check when probing SCOPE_CPU properties,
> too.
Good point. The current users are all calling them from the CPU init phase,
where it is not preemptible. But it would be good to add a check to make sure
nobody violates this condition. Also, will add a comment for
"this_cpu_has_cap()" API to call it under !preemptible() state.
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> index 8c46621..db392c5 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> @@ -71,7 +71,9 @@ DECLARE_BITMAP(cpu_hwcaps, ARM64_NCAPS);
>>
>> /* meta feature for alternatives */
>> static bool __maybe_unused
>> -cpufeature_pan_not_uao(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry);
>> +cpufeature_pan_not_uao(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, int __unused);
>> +
>> +static u64 __raw_read_system_reg(u32 sys_id);
>
> Can we not reorder the functions in this file to avoid the internal forward
> declarations?
We can. I had that in my initial version, but the patch looked a bit more complicated
with the code movement. I will bring it back and get rid of the declaration.
Cheers
Suzuki
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH v2 0/5] arm64: Fix behavior of maxcpus=n Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> - 2016-04-18 18:40 +0200
[PATCH v2 1/5] arm64: cpufeature: Add scope for capability check Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> - 2016-04-18 18:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] arm64: cpufeature: Add scope for capability check Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2016-04-20 13:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] arm64: cpufeature: Add scope for capability check Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com> - 2016-04-20 14:40 +0200
csiph-web