linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] riscv: cleanup svpbmt cpufeature probing

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Fri, 2 Sep 2022 15:26:21 +0000
From:   <Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com>
To:     <heiko@...ech.de>, <ajones@...tanamicro.com>
CC:     <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, <palmer@...belt.com>,
        <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, <guoren@...nel.org>,
        <apatel@...tanamicro.com>, <atishp@...osinc.com>,
        <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] riscv: cleanup svpbmt cpufeature probing

On 02/09/2022 16:12, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> Am Freitag, 2. September 2022, 11:49:39 CEST schrieb Andrew Jones:
>> Hi Heiko,
>>
>> Please use a cover-letter for a patch series. They allow the series to be
>> threaded better and people can reply to the cover-letter with series-wide
>> comments. For example, I'd like to reply to a cover-letter now with
>>
>> For the series
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>
>>
>> but now it looks like I need to go back and reply to each patch
>> separately.
> 
> I'm not sure if tooling like b4 can handle Reviewed-by's in cover-letters.

Yup, it can! At least `b4 {am,shazam} -t` will.
I am not sure if the new `b4 trailers` does.

> At least some time back it couldn't, so am not sure if that was added
> meanwhile. So tags added to cover-letters might even get lost.
> 
> But I'll add a cover-letter nevertheless - need a place for the v2 changelog
> anyway :-)
> 
> Heiko
> 
> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>> drew
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 12:27:41AM +0200, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
>>> This can also do without the ifdef and use IS_ENABLED instead and
>>> for better readability, getting rid of that switch also seems
>>> waranted.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c | 13 +++++--------
>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
>>> index 553d755483ed..764ea220161f 100644
>>> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
>>> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
>>> @@ -253,16 +253,13 @@ void __init riscv_fill_hwcap(void)
>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_RISCV_ALTERNATIVE
>>>  static bool __init_or_module cpufeature_probe_svpbmt(unsigned int stage)
>>>  {
>>> -#ifdef CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_SVPBMT
>>> -   switch (stage) {
>>> -   case RISCV_ALTERNATIVES_EARLY_BOOT:
>>> +   if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_SVPBMT))
>>>             return false;
>>> -   default:
>>> -           return riscv_isa_extension_available(NULL, SVPBMT);
>>> -   }
>>> -#endif
>>>
>>> -   return false;
>>> +   if (stage == RISCV_ALTERNATIVES_EARLY_BOOT)
>>> +           return false;
>>> +
>>> +   return riscv_isa_extension_available(NULL, SVPBMT);
>>>  }
>>>
>>>  static bool __init_or_module cpufeature_probe_zicbom(unsigned int stage)
>>
> 
> 
> 
>