Re: [PATCH 00/10] arm64/entry:

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Tue, Apr 07, 2026 at 11:08:36PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 07 2026 at 14:16, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > I've split the series into a prefix of changes for generic irqentry,
> > followed by changes to the arm64 code. I'm hoping that we can queue the
> > generic irqentry patches onto a stable branch, or take those via arm64.
> > The patches are as follows:
> >
> > * Patches 1 and 2 are cleanup to the generic irqentry code. These have no
> >   functional impact, and I think these can be taken regardless of the
> >   rest of the series.
> >
> > * Patches 3 to 5 refactor the generic irqentry code as described above,
> >   providing separate irqentry_{enter,exit}() functions and providing a
> >   split form of irqentry_exit_to_kernel_mode() similar to what exists
> >   for irqentry_exit_to_user_mode(). These patches alone should have no
> >   functional impact.
> 
> I looked through them and I can't find any problem with them. I queued
> them localy and added the missing kernel doc as I promised you on IRC.
> 
> As I have quite a conflict pending in the tip tree with other changes
> related to the generic entry code, I suggest that I queue 1-5, tag them
> for arm64 consumption and merge them into the conflicting branch to
> avoid trouble with pull request ordering and headaches for the -next
> people.

FWIW, for those 1-5

Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>