Re: [PATCH 2/7] arm64: head: correct comment for init_kernel_el()

[Bradley Morgan <brads@mainlining.org>]

On 2 September 2026 14:58:45 BST, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 02, 2026 at 02:49:57PM +0100, Bradley Morgan wrote:
>> On 2 September 2026 14:46:36 BST, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Tue, Aug 25, 2026 at 08:58:34PM +0000, Bradley Morgan wrote:
>> >> The comment above init_kernel_el() still says the function configures
>> >> the CPU to execute at the highest reachable EL, but that stopped
>being
>> >> true a while back. Ever since commit ae4b7e38e9a94798 ("arm64: Allow
>> >> sticky E2H when entering EL1"), init_kernel_el() always drops to EL1,
>> >> and it is finalise_el2() that brings us back up to EL2 when we want
>it.
>> >> 
>> >> Update the comment to match what the code actually does.
>> >> 
>> >> Signed-off-by: Bradley Morgan <brads@mainlining.org>
>> >> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
>> >> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
>> >> Cc: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
>> >> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
>> >> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
>> >> ---
>> >>  arch/arm64/kernel/head.S | 6 +++---
>> >>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> >
>> >This looks to be my patch [1], but with a (partially) rewritten commit
>> >message, and my S-o-B dropped.
>> >
>> >There was admittedly one typo in that commit message that needed to be
>> >fixed, but I don't think the rest of the changes were necessary, and I
>> >don't think it's approriate to drop my S-o-B.
>> >
>> >I think similar is true for the rest of the series. The patch fixing
>the
>> >_cpu_resume() only seems to have a paraphrased commit message.
>> >
>> >[1]
>>
>>https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mark/linux.git/commit/?id=ee4323ff6a2ba4c3989b38f13b2c1a516d6c27e4
>> >
>> >Mark.
>> >
>> >> 
>> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/head.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/head.S
>> >> index 87a822e5c4ca..c6301557eee1 100644
>> >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/head.S
>> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/head.S
>> >> @@ -254,9 +254,9 @@ SYM_FUNC_END(__primary_switched)
>> >>  	.section ".idmap.text","a"
>> >>  
>> >>  /*
>> >> - * Starting from EL2 or EL1, configure the CPU to execute at the
>> >highest
>> >> - * reachable EL supported by the kernel in a chosen default state.
>If
>> >dropping
>> >> - * from EL2 to EL1, configure EL2 before configuring EL1.
>> >> + * Starting from EL2 or EL1, configure the CPU to execute at EL1.
>> >> + * If dropping from EL2 to EL1, configure EL2 before configuring
>EL1.
>> >> + * To use VHE we'll upgrade back to EL2 later in finalise_el2().
>> >>   *
>> >>   * Since we cannot always rely on ERET synchronizing writes to
>sysregs
>> >(e.g. if
>> >>   * SCTLR_ELx.EOS is clear), we place an ISB prior to ERET.
>> >> -- 
>> >> 2.47.3
>> Hi mark, do you **WANT** your sob? I don't mind.
>
>Please read Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
>
>The SoB lines form a chain of authorship and delivery. You *must not*
>drop an SoB line.
>
>> I dropped it because it seemed you didn't care about it (or were too
>> busy),hence, yeah.
>
>I was busy, then on holiday. Neither has any relevance to the SoB lines.
>
>I do care about these patches, and I'm going to have to review them
>regardless. The reason I hadn't posted them was that this is a subtle
>area that needs careful handling.
>
>Mark.
Sorry mate,

V2 will have your SOB on all patches

I removed them due to like, what if you said

"Remove my sob these patches are terrible and unrelated"

Well, this is a corner case, but I had to think this through,

Yep, V2 will have your sob on all 7 patches.
--- Thanks!
https://lore.kernel.org/all/EE579805-42F2-4C58-B752-F28779EEB717@grrlz.net/