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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 00:48:26 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> To: Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org> Cc: Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@....com>, "palmer@...ive.com" <palmer@...ive.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, "linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/5] RISC-V: Add cpu_operatios structure On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 11:51:03AM +0530, Anup Patel wrote: > Having thought about this more, I think cpu_ops should be an pointer array > of NR_CPUS size. This means its not necessary to have have same ops for > all CPUs. The ARM64 implementation of CPU operations also allows separate > CPU operations for each CPU. > > For example, let's us assume that we have an SOC where we 2 cores > per-cluster and N clusters. All CPUs of cluster0 comes up at the same time > whereas cluster1 onwards we have to bring-up CPUs using special HW > mechanism. All this (including the patch itself) seems a little hypothetical. I'd rather only add all this infrastructure once it actually is needed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists