linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/2] soc: renesas: Add L2 cache management for RZ/Five SoC

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]

Date:   Wed, 5 Oct 2022 11:20:40 +0100
From:   "Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@...il.com>
To:     Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com
Cc:     conor@...nel.org, geert+renesas@...der.be,
        paul.walmsley@...ive.com, palmer@...belt.com,
        aou@...s.berkeley.edu, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, magnus.damm@...il.com,
        heiko@...ech.de, guoren@...nel.org, philipp.tomsich@...ll.eu,
        nathan@...nel.org, atishp@...osinc.com, apatel@...tanamicro.com,
        linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        biju.das.jz@...renesas.com, prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/2] soc: renesas: Add L2 cache management for
 RZ/Five SoC

Hi Conor,

On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 10:17 AM <Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com> wrote:
>
> On 05/10/2022 09:58, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> >
> > On 5 October 2022 09:44:56 IST, "Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@...il.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Conor,
> >>
> >> Thank you for the review.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 6:43 PM Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> >>>> +static void cpu_dcache_wb_range(unsigned long start,
> >>>> +                             unsigned long end,
> >>>> +                             int line_size)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> +     bool ucctl_ok = false;
> >>>> +     unsigned long pa;
> >>>> +     int mhartid = 0;
> >>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> >>>> +     mhartid = smp_processor_id();
> >>>> +#endif
> >>>
> >>> Won't this produce complaints from your if you compile with CONFIG_SMP
> >>> set?
> >>>
> >> No I dont see a build issue with SMP enabled, do you see any reason
> >> why it should fail?
> >
> > Not fail but complain about the unused variable.
> >
>
> Not unused variable, sorry but the unused 0 that it was initialised with*

No, it doesn't complain (I dont think compilers complain of such
unused assignments, maybe I'm wrong). BTW I am using GCC 9.4.0. Do you
think I need to update it?

Cheers,
Prabhakar