Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:07:29 +0100 | From | Will Deacon <> | Subject | Re: [PATCHv2 2/2] arm64: cpufeature: use static_branch_enable_cpuslocked() |
| |
On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:02:30AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 07:01:04PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 06:44:37PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c > > > index f6cc67e..379ad8d 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c > > > @@ -175,9 +175,20 @@ void verify_local_cpu_errata_workarounds(void) > > > } > > > } > > > > > > -void update_cpu_errata_workarounds(void) > > > +/* > > > + * Secondary CPUs are booted with the waker holding the > > > + * CPU hotplug lock, hence we don't need to lock it here again. > > > + */ > > > +void update_secondary_cpu_errata_workarounds(void) > > > +{ > > > + update_cpu_capabilities(arm64_errata, "enabling workaround for"); > > > +} > > > + > > > +void update_boot_cpu_errata_workarounds(void) > > > { > > > + get_online_cpus(); > > > update_cpu_capabilities(arm64_errata, "enabling workaround for"); > > > + put_online_cpus(); > > > } > > > > These functions seem to have unhelpful names, especially when compared to > > the naming scheme used by the core code. I'd prefer to have: > > > > update_cpu_errata_workarounds: just calls update_cpu_capabilities > > > > update_cpu_errata_workarounds_cpuslocked: does get_online_cpus(), then calls > > update_cpu_errata_workarounds, then does put_online_cpus(); > > That's the opposite polarity to the other _cpuslocked functions, where > _cpuslocked means that the lock is already held (and should not be taken > by the _cpuslocked function itself. > > So I'll make those changes, but I'll swap that so: > update_cpu_errata_workarounds() does: > > get_online_cpus() > update_cpu_errata_workarounds_cpuslocked() > put_online_cpus() > > > With that change: > > > > Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> > > I assume that will stand with the above change. Please shout if not!
Haha, yes, I got it downside-up. Thanks for working out what I meant.
Will
| |