linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: errata: Remove SMP dependency for erratum 751472
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 22:00:48 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111129220048.GO9581@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111129180618.GB2872@localhost.localdomain>

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 06:06:18PM +0000, Dave Martin wrote:
> One thing which strikes me about ALT_UP_B() is that the likely use is
> to skip over the SMP case code (which may consist of many instructions).
> This means that if the SMP code is not there at all (as in a UP kernel)
> no branch is necessary.

It's there to solve the case in the IRQ entry code, where it's use is
already bounded by a #ifdef CONFIG_SMP.

> An alternative would be for the ALT_UP_B() actually to disappear in a
> UP kernel.  So far as I can see, such an implementation would be
> compatible with all existing uses of this macro.  What do you think?

That sounds dangerous, adding unexpected behaviour to the code.  For
example:

#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
        /*
         * XXX
         *
         * this macro assumes that irqstat (r2) and base (r6) are
         * preserved from get_irqnr_and_base above
         */
        ALT_SMP(test_for_ipi r0, r2, r6, lr)
        ALT_UP_B(9997f)
        movne   r1, sp
        adrne   lr, BSYM(1b)
        bne     do_IPI
#endif

If the surrounding ifdef goes away, and the ALT_UP_B() ends up being
optimized to nothing, then we no longer skip over this code.  So no,
it's not compatible with existing uses.

      reply	other threads:[~2011-11-29 22:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-11-29 17:12 [PATCH] ARM: errata: Remove SMP dependency for erratum 751472 Dave Martin
2011-11-29 17:35 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-11-29 18:06   ` Dave Martin
2011-11-29 22:00     ` Russell King - ARM Linux [this message]

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=20111129220048.GO9581@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk \
    --to=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).