Messages in this thread | | | From | "Ren, Qiaowei" <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH v2] x86: add a new SMP bring up way for tboot case | Date | Thu, 11 Apr 2013 07:16:38 +0000 |
| |
> -----Original Message----- > From: H. Peter Anvin [mailto:hpa@zytor.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 11:02 AM > To: Ren, Qiaowei > Cc: Thomas Gleixner; Ingo Molnar; x86@kernel.org; Maliszewski, Richard L; > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; tboot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Xiaoyan > Zhang; Wei, Gang > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86: add a new SMP bring up way for tboot case > > On 03/19/2013 07:14 PM, Ren, Qiaowei wrote: > > Any comments on this patch? > > > > Thanks, > > Qiaowei > > The biggest question is probably if we can use an existing hook of some sort. > > Overriding the apic method is probably not the right way to go, though. > tglx, do you have any opinions here? >
If we can't use an existing hook, could you please give me any suggestion about other opinions here?
> Furthermore, this really is not nice: > > > +int tboot_wake_up(int apicid, unsigned long sipi_vec) { > > + if (!tboot_enabled()) > > + return 0; > > + > > + if ((tboot->version < 6) || > > + !(tboot->flags & TB_FLAG_AP_WAKE_SUPPORT)) > > + return 0; > > + > > + tboot->ap_wake_addr = sipi_vec; > > + tboot->ap_wake_trigger = apicid; > > + > > + return 1; > > +} > > Not only don't you set boot_error for the code above it, but there is absolutely > no indication how that does its job (are those active operations? If so they > should use writel()), nor does it include any kind of synchronization. >
Ok. I should add some comments to explain how that does its job. But I guess boot_error don't have to be set inside this function.
Thanks, Qiaowei
| |