linux-kernel - Re: x86/Voyager

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <73c1f2160901181021i6078b1b7ta2980e6fa41b4193@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:21:25 -0500
From:	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
To:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: x86/Voyager

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 1:04 PM, James Bottomley
<James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-01-18 at 12:41 -0500, Brian Gerst wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 11:41 AM, James Bottomley
>> <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2009-01-18 at 08:14 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> >> If there's no time/interest in that then we can temporarily mark Voyager
>> >> CONFIG_BROKEN until cleanup/fix patches arrive.
>> >
>> > It's not broken and I've already sent you the cleanup/fix patches ... I
>> > can send them directly to Linus as voyager maintainer if you prefer.
>>
>> The build breakage was due to the cpumask changes I believe, inherited
>> from -tip.
>>
>> There is alot of duplicated code in voyager_smp.c that is making it
>> difficult for me to work on the per-cpu changes.
>
> Actually, there's very little duplicated code, but what there is we can
> unify.  The reason it duplicates the API is because it has to provide a
> different implementation for voyager ... it's not a PC x86 architecture.
>
>>   Do you see any
>> reason that Voyager can't use the normal x86 setup_per_cpu_areas()
>> code?
>
> Er, well, yes.  Current setup_per_cpu_areas is setting up the cpu<->apic
> maps.  Voyager has no apics, so it has no use for any of the arrays
> being set up in there.
>
> If you're proposing to add arrays that would actually be useful to
> voyager, then sure we can use it ... it's just at the moment there's no
> need.   What is it you want to add in there?

The apic code can be ifdef'ed out for voyager.  The reason I want to
use the x86 setup_per_cpu_areas() is that I want to consolidate
initializing per-cpu variables in one place.  Voyager currently has
sprinkled in various places setting this_cpu_off, cpu_number, etc.

--
Brian Gerst
--
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/