From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79A5C21324E for ; Wed, 21 May 2025 19:06:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1747854420; cv=none; b=D6KuCc5jH9kuRx5GNmkD0xbZjuekukIpoaMYwd75J9F3fpJknHMcGCU4JjNhnfk4V/944euSU4wmv9w8XRQFx7UFAPQ29QnRXchePBeh8sVT254OdvBJBoCtCA0yz0jlZvMMxgxMXRJDRA5gu2TN99bPjhTrvhqt4dbKMQPI9Gc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1747854420; c=relaxed/simple; bh=D2KqaEz81T7+J/kvpNyyq76KkQ1iTBVlrTgIr5VrxHw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=iOwm6BshpozaI3ul9ChdrkfiioMQ0PJ3tsOzNNn0O2lH3nV3sHm4l+lREJYVy4K3+6k5cugjgrm1BxCJ50qtNkNMXbFJr54CWpXp0AvtgM2wU7oQSfpxsGgXismbdwtjir8Z16w13/0lZJty6BF/v3YhwrtTyIg/3LxQIj1AuJc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=pNO3N5lW; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=w5i9e5dB; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="pNO3N5lW"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="w5i9e5dB" From: Thomas Gleixner DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1747854417; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=wu3LOEUSMm8SUQd5p5Qsk9bRgy0QGcEvKsCCH/IqaTA=; b=pNO3N5lWlIpqyldg/OiyeKbAWTLkJJGWD8+guFnqyTm6u78TlsjWbbXsJPXpILVulkUVTC +Ecf8Rwbhesje+0OaGhHljlD2Ea0EODTfuGbVt/HfPWuuNvrqQb5j7Mq1vmtU24VG/hRDr 8bBXTll5BTy0hQk9F0FULd3csejwbsYU/EKkhCK0N3hZ6r1IUSegoXTQrxro+YUreenGbD stLdPEhbeu/Qr5A5ppOoUHTzknajq3sPtLHLnLNatzyjXWwCIRHSvaVznGDcHMfLmuEWAe WDfD+PvzgzYR3VD3myI2rigE/HFauBoIfW0jLjjYpXudjOPb+1MwWaMzuHHiug== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1747854417; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=wu3LOEUSMm8SUQd5p5Qsk9bRgy0QGcEvKsCCH/IqaTA=; b=w5i9e5dBlmxPOtW5aRYgr2WrZg7AbPP8TCLo/5dgCqAvNhbzUtO9uqZpJRMRFDSW5rE/Xm DIhx41lr/e/3HrBw== To: Dave Hansen , Rik van Riel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, x86@kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, luto@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com, nadav.amit@gmail.com, Yu-cheng Yu Subject: Re: [RFC v2 7/9] x86/mm: Introduce Remote Action Request In-Reply-To: <2385d4ed-48d5-4d50-ae95-dbeb23432b71@intel.com> References: <20250520010350.1740223-1-riel@surriel.com> <20250520010350.1740223-8-riel@surriel.com> <2385d4ed-48d5-4d50-ae95-dbeb23432b71@intel.com> Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 21:06:56 +0200 Message-ID: <87plg1rdf3.ffs@tglx> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain On Wed, May 21 2025 at 09:38, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 5/19/25 18:02, Rik van Riel wrote: >> +/* >> + * This is a modified version of smp_call_function_many() of kernel/smp.c, >> + * without a function pointer, because the RAR handler is the ucode. >> + */ > > It doesn't look _that_ much like smp_call_function_many(). I don't see > much that can be consolidated. It does not look like it because it has a gazillion of function arguments, which can all be packed into a data structure, i.e. the function argument of smp_call_function_many(). There is zero justification to reinvent the wheel and create another source of hard to debug problems. IMNSHO it's absolutely not rocket science to reuse smp_call_function_many() for this, but I might be missing something as always and I'm happy to be enlightenend. Just for the record: The changelog contains an utter void of information why this modified version of well established common code is required and desired. Thanks, tglx