From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mach-shmobile: Emma Mobile EV2 SMP prototype code
Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 14:13:37 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201205091413.37664.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1205090955520.21030@xanadu.home>
On Wednesday 09 May 2012, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Wed, 9 May 2012, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> > FWIW, I would actually prefer merging the 'struct arm_soc_desc', 'struct
> > arm_soc_smp_init_ops' and 'struct arm_soc_smp_ops' structures into a
> > single 'struct smp_ops' for simplicity.
>
> You can't easily validate correct usage of __init marked code from the
> rest if everything is pulled in the same struct. This is why I asked
> they be split.
Ah, I see. However, in version 6 of the patch set, each platform
was marking both structures as __initdata, which seems to make
your argument pointless because we don't actually validate the
sections.
Arnd
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] mach-shmobile: Emma Mobile EV2 SMP prototype code
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 14:13:37 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201205091413.37664.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1205090955520.21030@xanadu.home>
On Wednesday 09 May 2012, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Wed, 9 May 2012, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> > FWIW, I would actually prefer merging the 'struct arm_soc_desc', 'struct
> > arm_soc_smp_init_ops' and 'struct arm_soc_smp_ops' structures into a
> > single 'struct smp_ops' for simplicity.
>
> You can't easily validate correct usage of __init marked code from the
> rest if everything is pulled in the same struct. This is why I asked
> they be split.
Ah, I see. However, in version 6 of the patch set, each platform
was marking both structures as __initdata, which seems to make
your argument pointless because we don't actually validate the
sections.
Arnd
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"horms@verge.net.au" <horms@verge.net.au>,
"linux@arm.linux.org.uk" <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
"linux-sh@vger.kernel.org" <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"rjw@sisk.pl" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
"lethal@linux-sh.org" <lethal@linux-sh.org>,
"olof@lixom.net" <olof@lixom.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mach-shmobile: Emma Mobile EV2 SMP prototype code
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 14:13:37 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201205091413.37664.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1205090955520.21030@xanadu.home>
On Wednesday 09 May 2012, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Wed, 9 May 2012, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> > FWIW, I would actually prefer merging the 'struct arm_soc_desc', 'struct
> > arm_soc_smp_init_ops' and 'struct arm_soc_smp_ops' structures into a
> > single 'struct smp_ops' for simplicity.
>
> You can't easily validate correct usage of __init marked code from the
> rest if everything is pulled in the same struct. This is why I asked
> they be split.
Ah, I see. However, in version 6 of the patch set, each platform
was marking both structures as __initdata, which seems to make
your argument pointless because we don't actually validate the
sections.
Arnd
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-09 14:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-09 7:54 [PATCH] mach-shmobile: Emma Mobile EV2 SMP prototype code Magnus Damm
2012-05-09 7:54 ` Magnus Damm
2012-05-09 7:54 ` Magnus Damm
2012-05-09 12:12 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-05-09 12:12 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-05-09 12:12 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-05-09 13:15 ` Marc Zyngier
2012-05-09 13:15 ` Marc Zyngier
2012-05-09 13:15 ` Marc Zyngier
2012-05-09 13:45 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-05-09 13:45 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-05-09 13:45 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-05-09 13:59 ` Nicolas Pitre
2012-05-09 13:59 ` Nicolas Pitre
2012-05-09 13:59 ` Nicolas Pitre
2012-05-09 14:13 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2012-05-09 14:13 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-05-09 14:13 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-05-09 14:52 ` Magnus Damm
2012-05-09 14:52 ` Magnus Damm
2012-05-09 14:52 ` Magnus Damm
2012-05-11 7:13 ` Simon Horman
2012-05-11 7:13 ` Simon Horman
2012-05-11 7:13 ` Simon Horman
2012-05-11 8:05 ` Simon Horman
2012-05-11 8:05 ` Simon Horman
2012-05-11 8:05 ` Simon Horman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201205091413.37664.arnd@arndb.de \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.