On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 07:01:04PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 06:44:37PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c > > index f6cc67e..379ad8d 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c > > @@ -175,9 +175,20 @@ void verify_local_cpu_errata_workarounds(void) > > } > > } > > > > -void update_cpu_errata_workarounds(void) > > +/* > > + * Secondary CPUs are booted with the waker holding the > > + * CPU hotplug lock, hence we don't need to lock it here again. > > + */ > > +void update_secondary_cpu_errata_workarounds(void) > > +{ > > + update_cpu_capabilities(arm64_errata, "enabling workaround for"); > > +} > > + > > +void update_boot_cpu_errata_workarounds(void) > > { > > + get_online_cpus(); > > update_cpu_capabilities(arm64_errata, "enabling workaround for"); > > + put_online_cpus(); > > } > > These functions seem to have unhelpful names, especially when compared to > the naming scheme used by the core code. I'd prefer to have: > > update_cpu_errata_workarounds: just calls update_cpu_capabilities > > update_cpu_errata_workarounds_cpuslocked: does get_online_cpus(), then calls > update_cpu_errata_workarounds, then does put_online_cpus();
That's the opposite polarity to the other _cpuslocked functions, where _cpuslocked means that the lock is already held (and should not be taken by the _cpuslocked function itself. So I'll make those changes, but I'll swap that so: update_cpu_errata_workarounds() does: get_online_cpus() update_cpu_errata_workarounds_cpuslocked() put_online_cpus() > With that change: > > Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> I assume that will stand with the above change. Please shout if not! Thanks, Mark.