From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751250AbeAWPLl (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:11:41 -0500
Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:43088 "EHLO
        foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1750972AbeAWPLk (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:11:40 -0500
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 15:11:36 +0000
From: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
To: Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com>
Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, ckadabi@codeaurora.org,
        ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, marc.zyngier@arm.com,
        catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jnair@caviumnetworks.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/16] arm64: Move errata work around check on boot CPU
Message-ID: <20180123151135.GT22781@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <20180123122809.16269-1-suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
 <20180123122809.16269-3-suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
 <20180123145934.GS22781@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
 <31e6c173-9c27-80fd-a24e-8d234bb4be01@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <31e6c173-9c27-80fd-a24e-8d234bb4be01@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 03:07:18PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 23/01/18 14:59, Dave Martin wrote:
> >On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:27:55PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> >>We trigger CPU errata work around check on the boot CPU from
> >>smp_prepare_boot_cpu() to make sure that we run the checks only
> >>after the CPU feature infrastructure is initialised.
> >
> >On the surface of it, this sounds like a bug fix.
> 
> No, this is not. It is just moving the code to cpufeature.c
> 
> Earlier it was :
> 
> smp_prepare_boot_cpu()  -> cpuinfo_store_boot_cpu() -> init_cpu_features()
> 
> and then we did update_cpu_errata_workarounds() after we have done
> cpuinfo_store_boot_cpu(). With this change we do :
> 
> smp_prepare_boot_cpu()  -> cpuinfo_store_boot_cpu() -> init_cpu_features() -> update_cpu_errata_workarounds()
> 
> 
> >
> >Should there be a Fixes tag if so?
> >
> >If this reordering doesn't matter for upstream, it would be good to have
> >a quick explanation here as to why not.
> 
> Sure, will make it clearer.

Fair enough -- thanks.

I was a bit sketchy on the exact code flow here.

[...]

Cheers
---Dave