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
