On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 08:16 +1000, Balbir Singh wrote: > > 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?
What kind of impact do you expect ? Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
