On 27/04/16 07:05, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Tue, 2016-04-26 at 21:54 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >> This add generic mmu_feature_enabled() function that get patched >> to take right code path based on the feature bit enabled. The main >> difference between the existing mmu_has_feature() function is the >> hot patching using jump label framework. >> >> The implementation wraps around mmu_has_feature so that we can use >> this in early bootup code before we do the hotpatching. > > I'd rather we make mmu_has_feature() use jump labels and is the "main" > API to be used by most code. If we have a need for a lower-level > version for use by early boot code, call it __mmu_has_feature(). > > This is more in-line with existing kernel practices and avoids having > two APIs that somewhat look the same where it's not clear which one > should be used. >
Makes sense, but I suspect its a larger impact with loads of testing required across platforms. Should this be done incrementally? Balbir Singh _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
