On Sun, Mar 23 2025 at 04:06, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
> So it's my belief that what I'm doing here is standard for 34Kc.
>
> The reason I asked the question in the beginning was because I wanted
> to check my assumptions and know if there's any way I can get SMP
> without writing this dispatcher.
Fair enough. If it just works as is then I don't have any objections and
the question vs. SMP has to answered by the MIPS wizards.
>>>> So this patch clearly should have been tagged with 'RFC'.
>>> Given the patchset works correctly in testing, does this comment
>>> stand?
>> Until the EI/VI issue is resolved so that it either works or cannot
>> happen.
>
> All said, if "depends on !EI && !VI" makes you happy then I'm OK to add it.
It's not about making me happy. I just want to avoid a situation where
this causes hard to diagnose issues.
> Just what I'm afraid of is being asked to find an authoritative answer to my
> question before merging, because if nobody decides to jump in with one
> then this could just be blocked indefinitely.
Nah. If it works the way you implemented it and you can arguably exclude
EI/VI interaction, then there is no reason to delay anything.
Thanks,
tglx
