On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 10:56:13AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: > I don't understand the need to single out SMIDR_EL1. It seems to only > make things even more fragile than they already are by adding more > synchronisation phases. > Why isn't the following a good enough fix? It makes it plain that > boot_cpu_data is only a copy of CPU0's initial boot state. That would work but it's not clear to me that that is what the intent is here. The current ordering seemed like a strange enough decision to be deliberate, though I couldn't identify the reasoning.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
