linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/9] riscv: Change check_unaligned_access_speed_all

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: <95bcf744-63b0-4b44-800e-ff2ba1ddf86a@rivosinc.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2025 17:42:33 +0100
From: Clément Léger <cleger@...osinc.com>
To: Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: paul.walmsley@...ive.com, palmer@...belt.com, charlie@...osinc.com,
 jesse@...osinc.com, Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] riscv: Change check_unaligned_access_speed_all_cpus
 to void



On 07/02/2025 17:19, Andrew Jones wrote:
> The return value of check_unaligned_access_speed_all_cpus() is always
> zero, so make the function void so we don't need to concern ourselves
> with it. The change also allows us to tidy up
> check_unaligned_access_all_cpus() a bit.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>
> ---
>  arch/riscv/kernel/unaligned_access_speed.c | 15 +++++----------
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/unaligned_access_speed.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/unaligned_access_speed.c
> index 02b485dc4bc4..780f1c5f512a 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/unaligned_access_speed.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/unaligned_access_speed.c
> @@ -218,7 +218,7 @@ static int riscv_offline_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
>  }
>  
>  /* Measure unaligned access speed on all CPUs present at boot in parallel. */
> -static int __init check_unaligned_access_speed_all_cpus(void)
> +static void __init check_unaligned_access_speed_all_cpus(void)
>  {
>  	unsigned int cpu;
>  	unsigned int cpu_count = num_possible_cpus();
> @@ -226,7 +226,7 @@ static int __init check_unaligned_access_speed_all_cpus(void)
>  
>  	if (!bufs) {
>  		pr_warn("Allocation failure, not measuring misaligned performance\n");
> -		return 0;
> +		return;
>  	}
>  
>  	/*
> @@ -261,12 +261,10 @@ static int __init check_unaligned_access_speed_all_cpus(void)
>  	}
>  
>  	kfree(bufs);
> -	return 0;
>  }
>  #else /* CONFIG_RISCV_PROBE_UNALIGNED_ACCESS */
> -static int __init check_unaligned_access_speed_all_cpus(void)
> +static void __init check_unaligned_access_speed_all_cpus(void)
>  {
> -	return 0;
>  }
>  #endif
>  
> @@ -403,10 +401,10 @@ static int __init vec_check_unaligned_access_speed_all_cpus(void *unused __alway
>  
>  static int __init check_unaligned_access_all_cpus(void)
>  {
> -	bool all_cpus_emulated;
>  	int cpu;
>  
> -	all_cpus_emulated = check_unaligned_access_emulated_all_cpus();
> +	if (!check_unaligned_access_emulated_all_cpus())
> +		check_unaligned_access_speed_all_cpus();
>  
>  	if (!has_vector()) {
>  		for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> @@ -417,9 +415,6 @@ static int __init check_unaligned_access_all_cpus(void)
>  			    NULL, "vec_check_unaligned_access_speed_all_cpus");
>  	}
>  
> -	if (!all_cpus_emulated)
> -		return check_unaligned_access_speed_all_cpus();
> -
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  

Hi Andrew,

I had a similar patch in an upcoming series but you were faster !

Reviewed-by: Clément Léger <cleger@...osinc.com>

Thanks,

Clément