From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: maz@kernel.org, dbrazdil@google.com,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 2/3] arm64: cpufeature: reorder cpus_have_{const,final}_cap()
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 08:18:49 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201030081848.GB32066@willie-the-truck> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201026134931.28246-3-mark.rutland@arm.com>
On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 01:49:30PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> In a subsequent patch we'll modify cpus_have_const_cap() to call
> cpus_have_final_cap(), and hence we need to define cpus_have_final_cap()
> first.
>
> To make subsequent changes easier to follow, this patch reorders the two
> without making any other changes.
>
> There should be no functional change as a result of this patch.
You say this...
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Cc: David Brazdil <dbrazdil@google.com>
> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 16 ++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> index f7e7144af174c..5d18c54507e6a 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> @@ -428,35 +428,35 @@ static __always_inline bool __cpus_have_const_cap(int num)
> }
>
> /*
> - * Test for a capability, possibly with a runtime check.
> + * Test for a capability without a runtime check.
> *
> - * Before capabilities are finalized, this behaves as cpus_have_cap().
> + * Before capabilities are finalized, this will BUG().
> * After capabilities are finalized, this is patched to avoid a runtime check.
> *
> * @num must be a compile-time constant.
> */
> -static __always_inline bool cpus_have_const_cap(int num)
> +static __always_inline bool cpus_have_final_cap(int num)
> {
> if (system_capabilities_finalized())
> return __cpus_have_const_cap(num);
> else
> - return cpus_have_cap(num);
> + BUG();
... but isn't the failure case of calling cpus_have_final_cap() early now
different? What does BUG() do at EL2 w/ nVHE?
Will
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-30 8:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-26 13:49 [PATCHv2 0/3] arm64: kvm: avoid referencing cpu_hwcaps from hyp Mark Rutland
2020-10-26 13:49 ` [PATCHv2 1/3] arm64: kvm: factor out is_{vhe,nvhe}_hyp_code() Mark Rutland
2020-10-30 8:21 ` Will Deacon
2020-10-26 13:49 ` [PATCHv2 2/3] arm64: cpufeature: reorder cpus_have_{const, final}_cap() Mark Rutland
2020-10-30 8:18 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2020-10-30 8:20 ` [PATCHv2 2/3] arm64: cpufeature: reorder cpus_have_{const,final}_cap() Will Deacon
2020-10-30 14:18 ` Mark Rutland
2020-10-26 13:49 ` [PATCHv2 3/3] arm64: cpufeature: upgrade hyp caps to final Mark Rutland
2020-10-30 8:24 ` Will Deacon
2020-10-29 19:48 ` [PATCHv2 0/3] arm64: kvm: avoid referencing cpu_hwcaps from hyp Marc Zyngier
2020-10-30 10:59 ` Marc Zyngier
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=20201030081848.GB32066@willie-the-truck \
--to=will@kernel.org \
--cc=dbrazdil@google.com \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=maz@kernel.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