[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ab56a18c-a022-a6f5-05f7-b35b09ba74f6@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 16:53:02 +0000
From: Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@....com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
Cc: mark.rutland@....com, ckadabi@...eaurora.org,
ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org, marc.zyngier@....com,
catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jnair@...iumnetworks.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/20] arm64: capabilities: Add flags to handle the
conflicts on late CPU
On 07/02/18 11:31, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 07/02/18 10:38, Dave Martin wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 06:27:52PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
...
>>> Case (b) is not permitted for errata work arounds which requires some work
>>> around, which cannot be delayed. And we ignore (b) for features. Here, yet
>>
>> Nit, maybe:
>>
>> "Case (b) is not permitted for any errata workaround that cannot be
>> activated if the kernel has finished booting and has not already enabled
>> it."
>
> Nit^2: I think it would suffice to say "...that cannot be activated after the kernel has finished booting." - since we don't really have the concept of *de*activating workarounds, it is already implicit in that statement that the one in question wasn't activated *before* the kernel finished booting.
Robin, Dave,
I have updated the comments accordingly.
Thanks a lot for the review
Suzuki
Powered by blists - more mailing lists