Quoting Doug Anderson (2023-08-25 16:02:46)
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 3:27 PM Stephen Boyd <swb...@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > Quoting Douglas Anderson (2023-08-24 08:30:30)
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/irq.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/irq.h
> > >
> > > static int ipi_irq_base __read_mostly;
> > > static int nr_ipi __read_mostly = NR_IPI;
> > > -static struct irq_desc *ipi_desc[NR_IPI] __read_mostly;
> > > +static struct irq_desc *ipi_desc[MAX_IPI] __read_mostly;
> >
> > Side note: it would be nice to mark ipi_desc as __ro_after_init. Same
> > for nr_ipi and ipi_irq_base.
>
> I'd rather not change it in this patch since it's a pre-existing and
> separate issue, but I can add a patch to the end of the series for
> that if I end up spinning it. Otherwise I can send a follow-up patch
> for it.
Of course. Don't change it in this patch.
>
>
> > > static void ipi_setup(int cpu);
> > >
> > > @@ -845,6 +852,22 @@ static void __noreturn ipi_cpu_crash_stop(unsigned
> > > int cpu, struct pt_regs *regs
> > > #endif
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static void arm64_backtrace_ipi(cpumask_t *mask)
> > > +{
> > > + __ipi_send_mask(ipi_desc[IPI_CPU_BACKTRACE], mask);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +void arch_trigger_cpumask_backtrace(const cpumask_t *mask, int
> > > exclude_cpu)
> >
> > Can this be 'bool exclude_self' instead of int? That matches all other
> > implementations from what I can tell.
>
> Nope. See the part of the commit message that says:
>
> This patch depends on commit 36759e343ff9 ("nmi_backtrace: allow
> excluding an arbitrary CPU") since that commit changed the prototype
> of arch_trigger_cpumask_backtrace(), which this patch implements.
Ah, ok. Sounds fine then.
_______________________________________________
Kgdb-bugreport mailing list
Kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kgdb-bugreport
