On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 01:09:59PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:

On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:41:56AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:

quoted

On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 10:47:06AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:

quoted

+static int enable_mismatched_32bit_el0(unsigned int cpu)
+{
+	struct cpuinfo_arm64 *info = &per_cpu(cpu_data, cpu);
+	bool cpu_32bit = id_aa64pfr0_32bit_el0(info->reg_id_aa64pfr0);
+
+	if (cpu_32bit) {
+		cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpu_32bit_el0_mask);
+		static_branch_enable_cpuslocked(&arm64_mismatched_32bit_el0);

It may be worth only calling static_branch_enable_cpuslocked() if not
already set, in case you try this on a system with lots of CPUs.

static_key_enable_cpuslocked() already checks this early on, so I don't
think we need another check here (note that we're not calling stop_machine()
here _anyway_; the '_cpuslocked' suffix just says that we're already holding
cpu_hotplug_lock via the notifier).

Ah, you are right, no need for an additional check.

-- 
Catalin

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel