Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] arm64: Run enable method for errata work arounds on late CPUs

[Suzuki K Poulose]

On 18/01/18 14:21, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 12:08:43PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > On 18/01/18 12:00, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > +struct enable_arg {
> > > > +ÂÂÂ int (*enable)(struct arm64_cpu_capabilities const *);
> > > > +ÂÂÂ struct arm64_cpu_capabilities const *cap;
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +static int __enable_cpu_capability(void *arg)
> > > > +{
> > > > +ÂÂÂ struct enable_arg const *e = arg;
> > > > +
> > > > +ÂÂÂ return e->enable(e->cap);
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > AFAICS, you shouldn't even need the intermediate struct - if you were
> > > instead to call stop_machine(&caps->enable, ...), the wrapper could be:
> > >
> > >  ÂÂÂÂ<type> **fn = arg;
> > >  ÂÂÂÂ*fn(container_of(fn, struct arm64_cpu_capabilities, enable));
> > >
> > > (cheaty pseudocode because there's no way I'm going to write a
> > > pointer-to-function-pointer type correctly in an email client...)
> > >
> > > That's certainly a fair bit simpler in terms of diffstat; whether it's
> > > really as intuitive as I think it is is perhaps another matter, though.
> >
> > Ah, right, but then you'd be back to casting away const, and at that point
> > it makes no sense to do the container_of dance instead of just passing the
> > struct pointer itself around...
> >
> > I shall now excuse myself from this discussion, as I'm clearly not helping
> > :)
> >
> > Robin.
>
> That's what I was about to say... but neat trick.
>
> However, it does concentrate the type fudge in one place and keeps the
> arm64_cpu_capabilities::enable() prototype correct, so it's still better
> than the original.
>
>
> Thinking about it, the following is probably clearer and no worse:
>
> static int __enable_cpu_capability(void *arg)
> {
> 	struct arm64_cpu_capabilities const *cap = arg;
>
> 	return cap->enable(cap);
> }
>
> ...
>
> stop_machine(__enable_cpu_capability, (void *)caps, cpu_online_mask);
>
>
> In your version, the argument would be (void *)&caps->enable, which is
> really just a proxy for (void *)caps, unless I missed something.
>
>
> What do you think Suzuki?  I can respin my patch if you fancy picking it
> up.  Either way, it's not urgent.

Thanks for cooking that up Dave & Robin. I prefer your second version.
Please feel free to respin it. As you rightly said, this is not urgent
and could pick it up in my re-writing of the capability infrastructure ;-)

Meanwhile, I would really like some reviews on the original patch and
push it for 4.16 (as a fix at least).

Cheers
Suzuki

> Cheers
> ---Dave