From: Nam Cao <namcao@linutronix.de>
To: "Thomas Weißschuh" <thomas.weissschuh@linutronix.de>
Cc: "Paul Walmsley" <pjw@kernel.org>,
"Palmer Dabbelt" <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
"Albert Ou" <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
"Alexandre Ghiti" <alex@ghiti.fr>,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"André Almeida" <andrealmeid@igalia.com>,
"Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@kernel.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Sebastian Andrzej Siewior" <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] riscv: vdso: Implement __vdso_futex_robust_try_unlock()
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2026 13:50:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87fr1dev6w.fsf@yellow.woof> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260720134032-032dc788-414c-4d7e-b72b-57fa5311adc8@linutronix.de>
Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@linutronix.de> writes:
> I don't think we would get such an error currently.
> The cc-option check in the Makefile will fall back to non-zacas for the
> compat vDSO, but arch_futex_robust_unlock_get_pop() will treat it as zacas.
Switching to .option and the cc-option will be gone. See below.
> Ok. I don't understand the .option suggestion :-)
We wouldn't touch -march compile option in Makefiles. Instead, we do
.option push
.option arch, <extension name>
<instruction requiring extension>
.option pop
Whenever the ZACAS instruction is used.
See
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20260717-riscv-no-zacas-zabha-in-march-v1-1-82b5b0799fb6@iscas.ac.cn/
Nam
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Nam Cao <namcao@linutronix.de>
To: "Thomas Weißschuh" <thomas.weissschuh@linutronix.de>
Cc: "Paul Walmsley" <pjw@kernel.org>,
"Palmer Dabbelt" <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
"Albert Ou" <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
"Alexandre Ghiti" <alex@ghiti.fr>,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"André Almeida" <andrealmeid@igalia.com>,
"Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@kernel.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Sebastian Andrzej Siewior" <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] riscv: vdso: Implement __vdso_futex_robust_try_unlock()
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2026 13:50:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87fr1dev6w.fsf@yellow.woof> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260720134032-032dc788-414c-4d7e-b72b-57fa5311adc8@linutronix.de>
Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@linutronix.de> writes:
> I don't think we would get such an error currently.
> The cc-option check in the Makefile will fall back to non-zacas for the
> compat vDSO, but arch_futex_robust_unlock_get_pop() will treat it as zacas.
Switching to .option and the cc-option will be gone. See below.
> Ok. I don't understand the .option suggestion :-)
We wouldn't touch -march compile option in Makefiles. Instead, we do
.option push
.option arch, <extension name>
<instruction requiring extension>
.option pop
Whenever the ZACAS instruction is used.
See
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20260717-riscv-no-zacas-zabha-in-march-v1-1-82b5b0799fb6@iscas.ac.cn/
Nam
_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-20 11:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-17 8:06 [PATCH v3 0/5] riscv: vdso: Implement __vdso_futex_robust_try_unlock() Nam Cao
2026-07-17 8:06 ` Nam Cao
2026-07-17 8:06 ` [PATCH v3 1/5] riscv: compat_vdso: switch to standard kbuild rule Nam Cao
2026-07-17 8:06 ` Nam Cao
2026-07-17 12:17 ` Thomas Weißschuh
2026-07-17 12:17 ` Thomas Weißschuh
2026-07-17 8:06 ` [PATCH v3 2/5] riscv: compat_vdso: Allow *.c source files Nam Cao
2026-07-17 8:06 ` Nam Cao
2026-07-17 12:19 ` Thomas Weißschuh
2026-07-17 12:19 ` Thomas Weißschuh
2026-07-17 8:06 ` [PATCH v3 3/5] riscv: compat_vdso: Introduce COMPAT_MARCH variable Nam Cao
2026-07-17 8:06 ` Nam Cao
2026-07-17 12:19 ` Thomas Weißschuh
2026-07-17 12:19 ` Thomas Weißschuh
2026-07-17 8:06 ` [PATCH v3 4/5] riscv: compat_vdso: Build with zacas if available Nam Cao
2026-07-17 8:06 ` Nam Cao
2026-07-17 12:23 ` Thomas Weißschuh
2026-07-17 12:23 ` Thomas Weißschuh
2026-07-17 12:38 ` Vivian Wang
2026-07-17 12:38 ` Vivian Wang
2026-07-17 12:44 ` Vivian Wang
2026-07-17 12:44 ` Vivian Wang
2026-07-20 11:17 ` Nam Cao
2026-07-20 11:17 ` Nam Cao
2026-07-17 8:06 ` [PATCH v3 5/5] riscv: vdso: Implement __vdso_futex_robust_try_unlock() Nam Cao
2026-07-17 8:06 ` Nam Cao
2026-07-17 12:37 ` Thomas Weißschuh
2026-07-17 12:37 ` Thomas Weißschuh
2026-07-20 11:37 ` Nam Cao
2026-07-20 11:37 ` Nam Cao
2026-07-20 11:42 ` Thomas Weißschuh
2026-07-20 11:42 ` Thomas Weißschuh
2026-07-20 11:50 ` Nam Cao [this message]
2026-07-20 11:50 ` Nam Cao
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87fr1dev6w.fsf@yellow.woof \
--to=namcao@linutronix.de \
--cc=alex@ghiti.fr \
--cc=andrealmeid@igalia.com \
--cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjw@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@kernel.org \
--cc=thomas.weissschuh@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.