linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 07/13] drivers: base cacheinfo: Add support for ACPI based firmware tables

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: <c3306746-aacd-5ed8-95d6-a3186ec2089f@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 26 Apr 2018 12:05:56 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com,
        hanjun.guo@...aro.org, rjw@...ysocki.net, Will.Deacon@....com,
        Catalin.Marinas@....com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        Mark.Rutland@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, wangxiongfeng2@...wei.com,
        vkilari@...eaurora.org, ahs3@...hat.com, Dietmar.Eggemann@....com,
        Morten.Rasmussen@....com, palmer@...ive.com, lenb@...nel.org,
        john.garry@...wei.com, austinwc@...eaurora.org,
        tnowicki@...iumnetworks.com, jhugo@....qualcomm.com,
        timur@....qualcomm.com, ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 07/13] drivers: base cacheinfo: Add support for ACPI
 based firmware tables



On 26/04/18 00:31, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> Call ACPI cache parsing routines from base cacheinfo code if ACPI
> is enable. Also stub out cache_setup_acpi() so that individual
> architectures can enable ACPI topology parsing.
> 

[...]

> +#ifndef CONFIG_ACPI
> +static inline int acpi_find_last_cache_level(unsigned int cpu)
> +{
> +	/* ACPI kernels should be built with PPTT support */

This sounds incorrect for x86. But I understand why you have it there.
Does it makes sense to change above to .. ?

#if !defined(CONFIG_ACPI) || (defined(CONFIG_ACPI) && !(CONFIG_ACPI_PPTT))

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep