From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Cc: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bp@alien8.de, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/ioremap: introduce helper to implement xxx_is_setup_data()
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 09:25:53 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zz2dEcLrCtXEq4cg@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7cc5e26c-42fc-a700-ae19-608920cafe44@amd.com>
* Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> wrote:
> > /*
> > * Examine the physical address to determine if it is boot data by checking
> > * it against the boot params setup_data chain.
> > */
> > -static bool memremap_is_setup_data(resource_size_t phys_addr,
> > - unsigned long size)
> > +static bool __ref __memremap_is_setup_data(resource_size_t phys_addr,
>
> Oh, I see why the __ref is needed now, because this calls an __init
> function based on the early bool.
>
> While this nicely consolidates the checking, I'll let the x86
> maintainers decide whether they like that an __init function is calling
> a non __init function.
So why would it be a problem? Only non-__init calling __init is a bug,
because __init functions cease to exist after early bootup. Also,
calling certain kernel subsystems too early, before they are
initialized, is a bug as well.
But calling non-__init functions that have initialized already is like
totally normal: printk() for example, but also all locking facilities,
etc.
Am I missing anything here?
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-11-20 8:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-11-18 1:08 [PATCH v2 0/2] x86/ioremap: clean up the mess in xxx_is_setup_data Baoquan He
2024-11-18 1:08 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/ioremap: introduce helper to implement xxx_is_setup_data() Baoquan He
2024-11-18 15:19 ` Tom Lendacky
2024-11-19 3:07 ` Baoquan He
2024-11-19 10:55 ` Ingo Molnar
2024-11-20 7:21 ` Baoquan He
2024-11-20 7:56 ` Baoquan He
2024-11-20 8:25 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2024-11-20 14:14 ` Tom Lendacky
2024-11-25 9:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2024-11-26 8:15 ` Baoquan He
2024-11-18 1:08 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] x86/mm: clean up unused parameters of functions Baoquan He
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=Zz2dEcLrCtXEq4cg@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
--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