* [PATCH] ARM: Add safe diagnostic to indicate when __cpu_architecture isn't set up @ 2011-08-16 14:19 Dave Martin 2011-08-16 14:45 ` Tixy 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Dave Martin @ 2011-08-16 14:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel Although assing BUG() when __cpu_architecture is unexpectedly CPU_ARCH_UNKNOWN seems like a good idea, in practice the kernel may not be able to boot far enough even to write to the console in such cases, even with earlyprintk enabled. This patch adds a more useful diagnostic, and works out the cpu architecture from scratch in such cases, instead of just returning CPU_ARCH_UNKNOWN to the caller. This patch is useful for debugging, but I'm not convinced it should be merged. Signed-off-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@linaro.org> --- arch/arm/include/asm/system.h | 9 +++++++-- arch/arm/kernel/setup.c | 2 +- 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/system.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/system.h index b0445f7..d679d2f 100644 --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/system.h +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/system.h @@ -110,8 +110,13 @@ extern int __cpu_architecture; static inline int __pure cpu_architecture(void) { - BUG_ON(__cpu_architecture == CPU_ARCH_UNKNOWN); - return __cpu_architecture; + if (unlikely(__cpu_architecture == CPU_ARCH_UNKNOWN)) { + extern int __pure __get_cpu_architecture(void); + + WARN_ONCE(1, "__cpu_architecture not set yet!\n"); + return __get_cpu_architecture(); + } else + return __cpu_architecture; } extern void cpu_init(void); diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c index 1e0c1b3..188aae5 100644 --- a/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c @@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ static const char *proc_arch[] = { "?(17)", }; -static int __init __get_cpu_architecture(void) +int __get_cpu_architecture(void) { int cpu_arch; -- 1.7.4.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: Add safe diagnostic to indicate when __cpu_architecture isn't set up 2011-08-16 14:19 [PATCH] ARM: Add safe diagnostic to indicate when __cpu_architecture isn't set up Dave Martin @ 2011-08-16 14:45 ` Tixy 2011-08-16 14:59 ` Nicolas Pitre 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Tixy @ 2011-08-16 14:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 15:19 +0100, Dave Martin wrote: [...] > This patch is useful for debugging, but I'm not convinced it should > be merged. [...] > static inline int __pure cpu_architecture(void) > { > - BUG_ON(__cpu_architecture == CPU_ARCH_UNKNOWN); > - return __cpu_architecture; > + if (unlikely(__cpu_architecture == CPU_ARCH_UNKNOWN)) { > + extern int __pure __get_cpu_architecture(void); > + > + WARN_ONCE(1, "__cpu_architecture not set yet!\n"); > + return __get_cpu_architecture(); > + } else > + return __cpu_architecture; > } Seems to me that if we go down this route, cpu_architecture() may as well remain a non-inline function which just calculates the arch if it's not already set... if (unlikely(__cpu_architecture == CPU_ARCH_UNKNOWN)) __cpu_architecture = __get_cpu_architecture(); return __cpu_architecture; There seems to be too many ways to skin this cat :-) -- Tixy ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: Add safe diagnostic to indicate when __cpu_architecture isn't set up 2011-08-16 14:45 ` Tixy @ 2011-08-16 14:59 ` Nicolas Pitre 2011-08-16 16:15 ` Dave Martin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Nicolas Pitre @ 2011-08-16 14:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Tue, 16 Aug 2011, Tixy wrote: > On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 15:19 +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > [...] > > This patch is useful for debugging, but I'm not convinced it should > > be merged. > [...] > > static inline int __pure cpu_architecture(void) > > { > > - BUG_ON(__cpu_architecture == CPU_ARCH_UNKNOWN); > > - return __cpu_architecture; > > + if (unlikely(__cpu_architecture == CPU_ARCH_UNKNOWN)) { > > + extern int __pure __get_cpu_architecture(void); > > + > > + WARN_ONCE(1, "__cpu_architecture not set yet!\n"); > > + return __get_cpu_architecture(); > > + } else > > + return __cpu_architecture; > > } > > Seems to me that if we go down this route, cpu_architecture() may as > well remain a non-inline function which just calculates the arch if it's > not already set... My thought as well. > if (unlikely(__cpu_architecture == CPU_ARCH_UNKNOWN)) > __cpu_architecture = __get_cpu_architecture(); > return __cpu_architecture; > > There seems to be too many ways to skin this cat :-) Agreed. Nicolas ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: Add safe diagnostic to indicate when __cpu_architecture isn't set up 2011-08-16 14:59 ` Nicolas Pitre @ 2011-08-16 16:15 ` Dave Martin 2011-08-16 16:22 ` Nicolas Pitre 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Dave Martin @ 2011-08-16 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:59:18AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Tue, 16 Aug 2011, Tixy wrote: > > > On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 15:19 +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > > [...] > > > This patch is useful for debugging, but I'm not convinced it should > > > be merged. > > [...] > > > static inline int __pure cpu_architecture(void) > > > { > > > - BUG_ON(__cpu_architecture == CPU_ARCH_UNKNOWN); > > > - return __cpu_architecture; > > > + if (unlikely(__cpu_architecture == CPU_ARCH_UNKNOWN)) { > > > + extern int __pure __get_cpu_architecture(void); > > > + > > > + WARN_ONCE(1, "__cpu_architecture not set yet!\n"); > > > + return __get_cpu_architecture(); > > > + } else > > > + return __cpu_architecture; > > > } > > > > Seems to me that if we go down this route, cpu_architecture() may as > > well remain a non-inline function which just calculates the arch if it's > > not already set... > > My thought as well. > > > if (unlikely(__cpu_architecture == CPU_ARCH_UNKNOWN)) > > __cpu_architecture = __get_cpu_architecture(); > > return __cpu_architecture; > > > > There seems to be too many ways to skin this cat :-) > > Agreed. Well, I guess the flipside is, do we need this check at all? Because __cpu_architecture is set really early, and because if it's referenced too early, the kernel will either not boot or we'll hit BUG(), it's hard to imaging such a failure going unnoticed. So this check could simply be viewed as overkill, though it does feel safer to check. Any thoughts? ---Dave ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: Add safe diagnostic to indicate when __cpu_architecture isn't set up 2011-08-16 16:15 ` Dave Martin @ 2011-08-16 16:22 ` Nicolas Pitre 2011-08-17 10:53 ` Dave Martin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Nicolas Pitre @ 2011-08-16 16:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Tue, 16 Aug 2011, Dave Martin wrote: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:59:18AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Aug 2011, Tixy wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 15:19 +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > > > [...] > > > > This patch is useful for debugging, but I'm not convinced it should > > > > be merged. > > > [...] > > > > static inline int __pure cpu_architecture(void) > > > > { > > > > - BUG_ON(__cpu_architecture == CPU_ARCH_UNKNOWN); > > > > - return __cpu_architecture; > > > > + if (unlikely(__cpu_architecture == CPU_ARCH_UNKNOWN)) { > > > > + extern int __pure __get_cpu_architecture(void); > > > > + > > > > + WARN_ONCE(1, "__cpu_architecture not set yet!\n"); > > > > + return __get_cpu_architecture(); > > > > + } else > > > > + return __cpu_architecture; > > > > } > > > > > > Seems to me that if we go down this route, cpu_architecture() may as > > > well remain a non-inline function which just calculates the arch if it's > > > not already set... > > > > My thought as well. > > > > > if (unlikely(__cpu_architecture == CPU_ARCH_UNKNOWN)) > > > __cpu_architecture = __get_cpu_architecture(); > > > return __cpu_architecture; > > > > > > There seems to be too many ways to skin this cat :-) > > > > Agreed. > > Well, I guess the flipside is, do we need this check at all? > > Because __cpu_architecture is set really early, and because if > it's referenced too early, the kernel will either not boot or > we'll hit BUG(), it's hard to imaging such a failure going unnoticed. > > So this check could simply be viewed as overkill, though it does > feel safer to check. > > Any thoughts? I personally think this is overkill. Nicolas ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: Add safe diagnostic to indicate when __cpu_architecture isn't set up 2011-08-16 16:22 ` Nicolas Pitre @ 2011-08-17 10:53 ` Dave Martin 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Dave Martin @ 2011-08-17 10:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:22:43PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Tue, 16 Aug 2011, Dave Martin wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:59:18AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > On Tue, 16 Aug 2011, Tixy wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 15:19 +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > This patch is useful for debugging, but I'm not convinced it should > > > > > be merged. > > > > [...] > > > > > static inline int __pure cpu_architecture(void) > > > > > { > > > > > - BUG_ON(__cpu_architecture == CPU_ARCH_UNKNOWN); > > > > > - return __cpu_architecture; > > > > > + if (unlikely(__cpu_architecture == CPU_ARCH_UNKNOWN)) { > > > > > + extern int __pure __get_cpu_architecture(void); > > > > > + > > > > > + WARN_ONCE(1, "__cpu_architecture not set yet!\n"); > > > > > + return __get_cpu_architecture(); > > > > > + } else > > > > > + return __cpu_architecture; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > Seems to me that if we go down this route, cpu_architecture() may as > > > > well remain a non-inline function which just calculates the arch if it's > > > > not already set... > > > > > > My thought as well. > > > > > > > if (unlikely(__cpu_architecture == CPU_ARCH_UNKNOWN)) > > > > __cpu_architecture = __get_cpu_architecture(); > > > > return __cpu_architecture; > > > > > > > > There seems to be too many ways to skin this cat :-) > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > Well, I guess the flipside is, do we need this check at all? > > > > Because __cpu_architecture is set really early, and because if > > it's referenced too early, the kernel will either not boot or > > we'll hit BUG(), it's hard to imaging such a failure going unnoticed. > > > > So this check could simply be viewed as overkill, though it does > > feel safer to check. > > > > Any thoughts? > > I personally think this is overkill. OK, well since the inlining of cpu_architecture() doesn't feel like it really brings us any benefits I may move it back out of line, into setup.c, but keeping its new definition, including BUG(). The only reason for moving that function to be inline was because it had become trivial, but putting BUG() back undermines that. I will also remove the declaration of __cpu_architecture from <asm/system.h>, since for now this should not be used directly at all except by the undef handler, and we don't want to encourage its use. Any concerns on all of that? In the meantime, I will re-roll those patches... hopefully for the final time. Cheers ---Dave ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-08-17 10:53 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2011-08-16 14:19 [PATCH] ARM: Add safe diagnostic to indicate when __cpu_architecture isn't set up Dave Martin 2011-08-16 14:45 ` Tixy 2011-08-16 14:59 ` Nicolas Pitre 2011-08-16 16:15 ` Dave Martin 2011-08-16 16:22 ` Nicolas Pitre 2011-08-17 10:53 ` Dave Martin
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.