From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-f71.google.com (mail-oi0-f71.google.com [209.85.218.71]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 401EA6B0006 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2018 13:07:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-oi0-f71.google.com with SMTP id x85so3468103oix.8 for ; Thu, 01 Mar 2018 10:07:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from foss.arm.com (usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com. [217.140.101.70]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id w50si1421948ota.161.2018.03.01.10.07.02 for ; Thu, 01 Mar 2018 10:07:02 -0800 (PST) From: Punit Agrawal Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/11] ACPI / APEI: Generalise the estatus queue's add/remove and notify code References: <20180215185606.26736-1-james.morse@arm.com> <20180215185606.26736-3-james.morse@arm.com> <20180301150144.GA4215@pd.tnic> Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2018 18:06:59 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20180301150144.GA4215@pd.tnic> (Borislav Petkov's message of "Thu, 1 Mar 2018 16:01:44 +0100") Message-ID: <87sh9jbrgc.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Borislav Petkov Cc: James Morse , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Christoffer Dall , Marc Zyngier , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Naoya Horiguchi , Rafael Wysocki , Len Brown , Tony Luck , Tyler Baicar , Dongjiu Geng , Xie XiuQi Hi Borislav, Borislav Petkov writes: > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 06:55:57PM +0000, James Morse wrote: >> Keep the oops_begin() call for x86, > > That oops_begin() in generic code is such a layering violation, grrr. > >> arm64 doesn't have one of these, >> and APEI is the only thing outside arch code calling this.. > > So looking at: > > arch/arm/kernel/traps.c:die() > > it does call oops_begin() ... oops_end() just like the x86 version of > die(). You're looking at support for the 32-bit ARM systems. The 64-bit support lives in arch/arm64 and the die() there doesn't contain an oops_begin()/oops_end(). But the lack of oops_begin() on arm64 doesn't really matter here. > > I'm wondering if we could move the code to do die() in a prepatch? My > assumption is that all the arches should have die()... A quick grep does > show a bunch of other arches having die()... One issue I see with calling die() is that it is defined in different includes across various architectures, (e.g., include/asm/kdebug.h for x86, include/asm/system_misc.h in arm64, etc.) -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org