linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/11] powerpc: convert to generic helpers for IPI function calls

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:13:16 +0200
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc:	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	npiggin@...e.de, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, anton@...ba.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/11] powerpc: convert to generic helpers for IPI function calls

On Tue, Apr 22 2008, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Jens Axboe writes:
> 
> > This converts ppc to use the new helpers for smp_call_function() and
> > friends, and adds support for smp_call_function_single().
> 
> Looks OK, and runs on a dual G5 powermac here.  I'll try on some
> bigger IBM boxes tomorrow, or maybe Anton can do that.

Thanks a lot, Paul!

> I notice that you have changed the semantics slightly in that
> previously, the powerpc implementation would wait for the other cpus
> to have taken the interrupt, and print a message if they didn't all
> take the interrupt (this was different from the function of the `wait'
> parameter, which said whether to wait for all cpus to finish executing
> the specified function).
> 
> Now the generic smp_call_function_mask doesn't wait for the other cpus
> to take the interrupt.  I don't think that's likely to be a problem,
> but I do think that's worth mentioning in the patch description.
> 
> It's probably also worth mentioning that smp_send_stop no longer has
> the behaviour of doing its stuff even if someone is holding the lock,
> but that is OK (presumably) because now the lock (call_function_lock
> in the new code) is held for much shorter periods and there doesn't
> appear to be much danger of other cpus getting stuck or panicking
> while holding that lock.

I touched on both of these points in the initial mail, but perhaps you
missed it as I didn't CC everyone for the 0/11 part. I'll add the full
explanation to the 1/11 patch as well.

> You can put Acked-by: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org> on the ppc
> patch, but please extend the description a bit as outlined above.

I'll add the ack, let me know if you still think I should do more on the
changelog side.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/