From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] arm64: Add AT_HWCAP3
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2022 18:53:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YsR6n+AxQM289EMq@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220620125451.653507-1-broonie@kernel.org>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 907 bytes --]
On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 01:54:47PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> Currently for arm64 we expose hwcaps to userspace using the low 32 bits
> of AT_HWCAP and AT_HWCAP2. Due to the ever expanding capabilties of the
> architecture we have now allocated all the available bits in this scheme
> so we need to expand, either using the higher bits or adding a new
> AT_HWCAP3. Discussions with glibc developers suggested that AT_HWCAP3
> would be cleaner for them so the series adopts that approach.
This discussion appears to have ground to a halt. Szabolcs prefers
AT_HWCAP3, Catalin using the high bits of AT_HWCAP2 for now and nobody
else said anything. I don't have strong preferences either way but
wonder if it's worth defining AT_HWCAP3 even if we start allocating more
bits from AT_HWCAP2 so that it's got more time to percolate through
libcs and so on before it's actually needed.
What should we do here?
[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
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:[~2022-07-05 17:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-20 12:54 [PATCH v2 0/4] arm64: Add AT_HWCAP3 Mark Brown
2022-06-20 12:54 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] arm64/cpufeature: Store elf_hwcaps as an array rather than unsigned long Mark Brown
2022-06-28 14:21 ` Will Deacon
2022-06-28 15:06 ` Mark Brown
2022-06-29 10:01 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2022-06-29 11:44 ` Mark Brown
2022-06-29 12:06 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2022-06-29 13:55 ` Catalin Marinas
2022-06-29 15:07 ` Mark Brown
2022-06-20 12:54 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] elf: Allow architectures to provide AT_HWCAP3 Mark Brown
2022-06-20 12:54 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] arm64/cpufeature: Support AT_HWCAP3 Mark Brown
2022-06-20 12:54 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] arm64/hwcap: Support FEAT_EBF16 Mark Brown
2022-07-05 17:53 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2022-07-06 9:02 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] arm64: Add AT_HWCAP3 Szabolcs Nagy
2022-07-06 10:08 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-07-06 13:48 ` Mark Brown
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=YsR6n+AxQM289EMq@sirena.org.uk \
--to=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=szabolcs.nagy@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).