From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@amd64.org>,
X86-ML <x86@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] x86, cpu, amd: Add a per-vendor BSP function
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 17:13:17 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E405F7D.9000701@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110808215713.GB22088@liondog.tnic>
On 08/08/2011 04:57 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>
>> This is totally going backwards. We *should* be using struct cpu_dev
>> rather than switch statements for this.
>
> Right, but all the cpu_dev things are annotated with __cpuinitconst
> because they're used in CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU. __init, OTOH, will be
> discarded once we're done booting. So, we can't convert cpu_dev
> to __initdata because we need it for cpu hotplug and we want the
> run_on_bsp() functionality to be __init since it runs once on boot.
>
> Maybe leave cpu_dev in __cpuinit let it have an __init member which is
> the ->run_on_bsp()? Does that even work?
>
I don't think so, which is a fundamental shortcoming of our way of
handling these kinds of pointers. One way to deal with it would be to
make struct cpu_dev __initconst and copy it into a __cpuinit variable at
init time.
Either way, I'd rather leave the routines in cpuinit memory than adding
another multiplex.
-hpa
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-08-08 22:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-08-08 18:57 [RFC][PATCH 0/2] x86, CPU: Run stuff on the BSP Borislav Petkov
2011-08-08 18:57 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/2] x86, CPU: Drop second get_cpu_cap prototype Borislav Petkov
2011-08-08 18:57 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/2] x86, cpu, amd: Add a per-vendor BSP function Borislav Petkov
2011-08-08 20:56 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-08-08 21:57 ` Borislav Petkov
2011-08-08 22:13 ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
2011-08-09 13:05 ` Borislav Petkov
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=4E405F7D.9000701@zytor.com \
--to=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=borislav.petkov@amd.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=bp@amd64.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=x86@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