On 11 March 2023 14:14:53 GMT, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On Sat, Mar 11 2023 at 09:55, David Woodhouse wrote: >> On Sat, 2023-03-11 at 10:54 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> I think I'll do it with a 'bool unpoison' argument to >> idle_thread_get(). Or just make it unconditional; they're idempotent >> anyway and cheap enough? Kind of weird to be doing it from finish_cpu() >> though, so I'll probably stick with the argument. > >Eew. Hm? I prefer the idea that idle_thread_get() is able to just return a *usable* one, and that we don't rely on architectures to have the *same* set of functions to unpoison/prepare it, and keep those duplicates in sync... I suppose we could make a separate make_that_idle_thread_you_gave_me_actually_useful() function and avoid the duplication of anything but *that* call... but meh.
