[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b49096ad-fbfd-393f-9f35-944eeecd91db@amd.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 08:14:39 -0600
From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bp@...en8.de,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/ioremap: introduce helper to implement
xxx_is_setup_data()
On 11/20/24 02:25, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com> wrote:
>
>>> /*
>>> * Examine the physical address to determine if it is boot data by checking
>>> * it against the boot params setup_data chain.
>>> */
>>> -static bool memremap_is_setup_data(resource_size_t phys_addr,
>>> - unsigned long size)
>>> +static bool __ref __memremap_is_setup_data(resource_size_t phys_addr,
>>
>> Oh, I see why the __ref is needed now, because this calls an __init
>> function based on the early bool.
>>
>> While this nicely consolidates the checking, I'll let the x86
>> maintainers decide whether they like that an __init function is calling
>> a non __init function.
>
> So why would it be a problem? Only non-__init calling __init is a bug,
> because __init functions cease to exist after early bootup. Also,
> calling certain kernel subsystems too early, before they are
> initialized, is a bug as well.
I brought it up because that is what could happen if the wrong boolean
value is supplied to the helper function. The helper function is marked
non-__init but calls a __init function if the boolean value is true, hence
the need for the __ref tagging.
But, I don't anticipate that this helper will be called by anything else
than what is currently calling it and the proper boolean values are set on
those calls.
I just wanted to raise awareness. I'm ok with using __ref, just wanted to
make sure everyone else is, too.
Thanks,
Tom
>
> But calling non-__init functions that have initialized already is like
> totally normal: printk() for example, but also all locking facilities,
> etc.
>
> Am I missing anything here?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists