Mauricio Faria de Oliveira <mauri...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: > Hi Michael and Michal, > > Got back to this; sorry for the delay. > > On 03/06/2018 09:55 AM, Michal Suchánek wrote: >> Michael Ellerman<m...@ellerman.id.au> wrote: > >>> I*think* the patch below is all we need, as well as some tweaking of >>> patch 2, are you able to test and repost? > >> Enabling the fallback flush always looks a bit dodgy but >> do_rfi_flush_fixups will overwrite the jump so long any other fixup is >> enabled. > > I agree; the 'Using fallback displacement flush' message is misleading > (is the system slower/fallback or not? Ô_o)
That message is actually just wrong. It still prints that even if enable=false. So we should change all those messages, perhaps: pr_info("rfi-flush: fallback displacement flush available\n"); pr_info("rfi-flush: ori type flush available\n"); pr_info("rfi-flush: mttrig type flush available\n"); > So I wrote something with a new function parameter to force the init of > the fallback flush area (true in pseries, false in powernv). Not that > contained, but it seemed to convey the intent here in a clear way. > > That's v2, just sent. OK thanks. I don't really like it :D - sorry! It's a lot of plumbing of that bool just to avoid the message, whereas I think we could just change the message like above. cheers