netdev - Re: [PATCH 08/31] nds32: Cache and TLB routines

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: <CAEbi=3dRR6rAzWnLJC6=fbFpfivEaHnb6A9YVsQmx3q+6Z7s3w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 Nov 2017 17:01:48 +0800
From:   Greentime Hu <green.hu@...il.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Greentime <greentime@...estech.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vincent Chen <vincentc@...estech.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/31] nds32: Cache and TLB routines

2017-11-08 16:45 GMT+08:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>:
> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 6:54 AM, Greentime Hu <green.hu@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> +#ifndef __NDS32_PROCFNS_H__
>> +#define __NDS32_PROCFNS_H__
>> +
>> +#define CPU_NAME n13
>> +
>> +#ifdef __KERNEL__
>> +
>> +#ifdef __STDC__
>> +#define ____cpu_fn(name,fn)       name##fn
>> +#else
>> +#define ____cpu_fn(name,fn)       name/**/fn
>> +#endif
>> +#define __cpu_fn(name,fn)         ____cpu_fn(name,fn)
>> +
>> +#define cpu_proc_init                  __cpu_fn( CPU_NAME, _proc_init)
>> +#define cpu_proc_fin                   __cpu_fn( CPU_NAME, _proc_fin)
>> +#define cpu_do_idle                    __cpu_fn( CPU_NAME, _do_idle)
>> +#define cpu_reset                      __cpu_fn( CPU_NAME, _reset)
>> +#define cpu_switch_mm                  __cpu_fn( CPU_NAME, _switch_mm)
>
> I see you have copied this from ARM. Do you actually need the same complexity,
> with the ability to build either optimal code for a particular CPU or
> a multi-CPU
> version?
>
> Most other architectures seem to have settled for doing just one of the two
> models. How many CPU implementations to you expect to support that
> differ in all of those functions?
>

I think we can simplify the implementations because we may not have that
many implementations. I will refine it in the next version patch.