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: <14898598-8411-4c2d-b983-07c8bb50159a@ghiti.fr>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:15:23 +0100
From: Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>
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;
>   }
>   

Reviewed-by: Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@...osinc.com>

Thanks,

Alex