On 18/06/2019 22:28, Jeremy Linton wrote:
Hi,
On 6/18/19 12:23 PM, John Garry wrote:
On 18/06/2019 15:40, Valentin Schneider wrote:
On 18/06/2019 15:21, Jeremy Linton wrote:
[...]
+ * Return: -ENOENT if the PPTT doesn't exist, the CPU cannot be
found or
+ * the table revision isn't new enough.
+ * Otherwise returns flag value
+ */
Nit: strictly speaking we're not returning the flag value but its mask
applied to the flags field. I don't think anyone will care about
getting
the actual flag value, but it should be made obvious in the doc:
Or I clarify the code to actually do what the comments says. Maybe
that is what John G was also pointing out too?
No, I was just saying that the kernel topology can be broken without
this series.
Mmm I didn't find any reply from John regarding this in v1, but I
wouldn't
mind either way, as long as the doc & code are aligned.
BTW, to me, function acpi_pptt_cpu_is_thread() seems to try to do too
much, i.e. check if the PPTT is new enough to support the thread flag
and also check if it is set for a specific cpu. I'd consider separate
functions here.
Hi,
? Your suggesting replacing the
I am not saying definitely that this should be changed, it's just that
acpi_pptt_cpu_is_thread() returning false, true, or "no entry" is not a
typical API format.
How about acpi_pptt_support_thread_info(cpu) and
acpi_pptt_cpu_is_threaded(cpu), both returning false/true only?
None of this is ideal.
BTW, Have you audited which arm64 systems have MT bit set legitimately?
if (table->revision >= rev)
I know that checking the table revision is not on the fast path, but it
seems unnecessarily inefficient to always read it this way, I mean
calling acpi_table_get().
Can you have a static value for the table revision? Or is this just how
other table info is accessed in ACPI code?
cpu_node = acpi_find_processor_node(table, acpi_cpu_id);
check with
if (revision_check(table, rev))
cpu_node = acpi_find_processor_node(table, acpi_cpu_id);
and a function like
static int revision_check(acpixxxx *table, int rev)
{
return (table->revision >= rev);
}
Although, frankly if one were to do this, it should probably be a macro
with the table type, and used in the dozen or so other places I found
doing similar checks (spcr, iort, etc).
Or something else?
thanks,
John
[...]
.
.
