Hi,
On 02/04/2019 16:06, Andrew Murray wrote:
On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 03:58:21PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 11:45:11AM +0100, Andrew Murray wrote:
The introduction of AT_HWCAP2 introduced accessors which ensure that
hwcap features are set and tested appropriately.
Let's now mandate access to elf_hwcap via these accessors by making
elf_hwcap static within cpufeature.c.
Looks reasonable except for a couple of minor nits below.
I had wondered whether putting these accessors out of line would affect
any hot paths, but I can't see these used from anything that looks like
a hot path. So we're probably fine.
cpus_have_const_cap() is preferred for places where this matters,
anyway.
Btw, thats for cpu_hwcaps, which is completely different from elf_hwcaps.
[...]
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
index 986ceeacd19f..84ca52fa75e5 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
@@ -35,8 +35,7 @@
#include <asm/traps.h>
#include <asm/virt.h>
-unsigned long elf_hwcap __read_mostly;
-EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(elf_hwcap);
+static unsigned long elf_hwcap __read_mostly;
Now that this doesn't correspond directly to ELF_HWCAP any more and we
hide it, can we rename it to avoid confusion?
Maybe "kernel_hwcap"?
Yes this seems reasonable.
nit:
As mentioned above we have "cpu_hwcaps" for the features only internally
by the kernel. Naming it "kernel_hwcap" kind of looses the hint that the
major purpose is for userspace consumption and could easily confuse with
the poorly named "cpu_hwcaps" which should have been called kernel_hwcaps.
How about "user_hwcaps" ? Or preferrably something closer to that.
Cheers
Suzuki
