Re: [PATCH 2/5] alpha: Modify the definition logic of WEAK_PER_CPU

[Hao Ge]

On 2025/6/12 19:22, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 04:27:27PM +0800, Hao Ge wrote:
> > From: Hao Ge <gehao@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > As stated in the first patch of this patch series,
> > we make ARCH_NEEDS_WEAK_PER_CPU a Kconfig option,
> > and replace all instances of ARCH_NEEDS_WEAK_PER_CPU
> > in the kernel code with MODULE_NEEDS_WEAK_PER_CPU,
> > gated by #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_NEEDS_WEAK_PER_CPU.
> >
> > We'll make corresponding changes for the alpha
> > architecture.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Hao Ge <gehao@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   arch/alpha/Kconfig              | 1 +
> >   arch/alpha/include/asm/percpu.h | 4 ++--
> >   2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> ...
>
> > +	select ARCH_NEEDS_WEAK_PER_CPU
> >   	select ARCH_NO_PREEMPT
> >   	select ARCH_NO_SG_CHAIN
> >   	select ARCH_USE_CMPXCHG_LOCKREF
> > diff --git a/arch/alpha/include/asm/percpu.h b/arch/alpha/include/asm/percpu.h
> > index 6923249f2d49..5d8b75ec3bf2 100644
> > --- a/arch/alpha/include/asm/percpu.h
> > +++ b/arch/alpha/include/asm/percpu.h
> > @@ -10,8 +10,8 @@
> >    *
> >    * Always use weak definitions for percpu variables in modules.
> >    */
> > -#if defined(MODULE) && defined(CONFIG_SMP)
> > -#define ARCH_NEEDS_WEAK_PER_CPU
> > +#if defined(MODULE) && defined(CONFIG_SMP) && defined(CONFIG_ARCH_NEEDS_WEAK_PER_CPU)
> > +#define MODULE_NEEDS_WEAK_PER_CPU

Hi Heiko

Thank you for taking the time to review these patches.

> CONFIG_ARCH_NEEDS_WEAK_PER_CPU is always set with the above select.
> So there is no point in adding this to the check.
Yes, that's exactly the case.
> Furthermore this removes ARCH_NEEDS_WEAK_PER_CPU and defines
> MODULE_NEEDS_WEAK_PER_CPU while the common code conversion happens
> only with patch 4. Or in other words: if patches are split like this
> things break.
>
> Same is true for patch 3. Just merging patches 2-4 would be the
> easiest solution to this problem.

I think this should be CC'd to the stable branch.

I'm wondering if these need to be integrated into a single patch.

I'm not sure. What do you think?


Hi Andrew and Suren

How do you see this? Any suggestions?

Thanks
Best Regards
Hao