From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Julien Grall <julien@xen.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Zhang Lei <zhang.lei@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Daniel Kiss <Daniel.Kiss@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/8] arm64/sve: First steps towards optimizing syscalls
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 14:08:31 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200921130829.GI2139@willie-the-truck> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200921125628.GB4792@sirena.org.uk>
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 01:56:28PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 01:42:13PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
>
> > Having three flags to track the fp state and then a bunch of WARN()s
> > checking for invalid combinations is quite brittle, so any documentation
> > that can help to justify this would certainly be useful!
>
> > I've left a couple of comments on some of the patches, but it looks like
> > Dave was reviewing them but stopped short of the meat and potatoes in the
> > last two patches. I'd like to see his Ack on those before picking them up,
> > as well as testing from somebody with hardware because this is _very_
> > subtle stuff.
>
> Right. The previous version was tested on hardware but I dropped the
> Tested-by since I felt there were more changes than I was comfortable
> with. I have to say that a bunch of the things you've flagged up were
> things that were requested on previous rounds of review.
If you have links to specifics, I'm happy to take a look. I like what this
patch series is trying to do, but the implementation is piling complexity
on top of something that is already horribly complicated and I don't
immediately see the justification for why that is necessary.
> > Is it worth me picking some of the preparatory patches up on their own?
>
> I think so, yes - it'd make the series easier to manage and mean there's
> less to redo per-patch validation on each time if nothing else. They
> don't do any harm and seem like they'd be useful even if a completely
> different approach is adopted.
Ok, I'll see if I can reduce this a bit then.
Will
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-21 13:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-28 18:11 [PATCH v4 0/8] arm64/sve: First steps towards optimizing syscalls Mark Brown
2020-08-28 18:11 ` [PATCH v4 1/8] arm64/fpsimd: Update documentation of do_sve_acc Mark Brown
2020-08-28 18:11 ` [PATCH v4 2/8] arm64/signal: Update the comment in preserve_sve_context Mark Brown
2020-08-28 18:11 ` [PATCH v4 3/8] arm64/fpsimdmacros: Allow the macro "for" to be used in more cases Mark Brown
2020-09-21 12:38 ` Will Deacon
2020-09-21 16:53 ` Dave Martin
2020-09-21 18:09 ` Mark Brown
2020-09-22 13:51 ` Dave Martin
2020-09-22 13:59 ` Mark Brown
2020-09-22 14:07 ` Dave Martin
2020-08-28 18:11 ` [PATCH v4 4/8] arm64/fpsimdmacros: Introduce a macro to update ZCR_EL1.LEN Mark Brown
2020-08-28 18:11 ` [PATCH v4 5/8] arm64/sve: Implement a helper to flush SVE registers Mark Brown
2020-08-28 18:11 ` [PATCH v4 6/8] arm64/sve: Implement a helper to load SVE registers from FPSIMD state Mark Brown
2020-08-28 18:11 ` [PATCH v4 7/8] arm64/sve: Don't disable SVE on syscalls return Mark Brown
2020-09-21 12:36 ` Will Deacon
2020-09-21 18:03 ` Mark Brown
2020-09-22 14:03 ` Dave Martin
2020-09-22 16:04 ` Mark Brown
2020-08-28 18:11 ` [PATCH v4 8/8] arm64/sve: Rework SVE trap access to use TIF_SVE_NEEDS_FLUSH Mark Brown
2020-09-21 12:42 ` [PATCH v4 0/8] arm64/sve: First steps towards optimizing syscalls Will Deacon
2020-09-21 12:56 ` Mark Brown
2020-09-21 13:08 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2020-09-21 18:17 ` Will Deacon
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=20200921130829.GI2139@willie-the-truck \
--to=will@kernel.org \
--cc=Daniel.Kiss@arm.com \
--cc=Dave.Martin@arm.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=julien.grall@arm.com \
--cc=julien@xen.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=zhang.lei@jp.fujitsu.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox