[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160322170135.GE5656@pd.tnic>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 18:01:35 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
To: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@....com>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
mcgrof@...e.com, jgross@...e.com, paul.gortmaker@...driver.com,
konrad.wilk@...cle.com, elliott@....com, x86@...nel.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] x86/mtrr: Fix PAT init handling when MTRR MSR is
disabled
Subject: [PATCH v2 4/6] x86/mtrr: Fix PAT init handling when MTRR MSR is disabled
s/ MSR//
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 06:46:57PM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
> get_mtrr_state() calls pat_init() on BSP even if MTRR is disabled
> by its MSR.
s/by its MSR//
> This causes pat_init() to be called on BSP only since APs do not call
This doesn't cause that - get_mtrr_state() is called only on the BSP by
mtrr_bp_init().
> pat_init() when MTRR is disabled. This inconsistency between BSP and
> APs leads undefined behavior.
leads to
> Move BSP's PAT init code from get_mtrr_state() to mtrr_bp_pat_init().
> Change mtrr_bp_init() to call mtrr_bp_pat_init() if MTRR is enabled.
No need for those.
> This keeps BSP's calling condition to pat_init() consistent with AP's,
> mtrr_ap_init() and mtrr_aps_init().
This one is fine.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--
Powered by blists - more mailing lists