From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 09:54:27 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 0/5] Kernel mode NEON for XOR and RAID6 In-Reply-To: References: <1370530985-20619-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20130606151705.GG16794@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> <20130607175007.GH8111@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> <20130621093311.GD6983@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> <51C46A0D.8070505@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <20130624085427.GY2718@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:08:10AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 21 June 2013 16:58, Christopher Covington wrote: > > Hi Ard, > > > > If this is indeed the consensus (I don't disagree with any of it myself), > > perhaps committing the main points, guidelines, and examples to > > Documentation/arm/* would be useful. > > > > Hello Chris, > > I agree that it makes sense to document any guidelines we set > regarding the use of NEON in kernel mode, and I will happily do so. > However, let's first try to wrap up this discussion, haven't heard > back from Russell yet on his current position in this matter. I think it's probably fine now - you have ample justification, and you seem to be ensuring that things are done safely. The only thing I'm left wondering about is whether the bits outside arch/arm should go to anyone else, but MAINTAINERS is being unhelpful on that - so I'm tempted to say that if someone should've been copied who hasn't, and they're not in MAINTAINERS that's their problem.