From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9706CA5FB1 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2026 08:41:32 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=sFCvsXZLdxLKdHXwpS2nWXBpKLwepoPfVilE5Kh5WMA=; b=kAbSR7OXd01KqtHgDLcaPP1SjG tgzq4aJE/Ayje+4GCAPlE/JhPjREK2Xp9LP7XggLcJilMSnDcTYrHZ+NidqhnAGyxy2nwBnifqfes RWStKYXDZVeYlbzDr6EjJ8rUHIPlaxHUZU+XWzFS1yWw8MOLQHxNbZ261LlRjNzIDhalPKmM0EqNh E7VpOasz1ow8D7w65wJ9mSba8W69pjNuPNSNXRLMBbwwTm5s5TjkHaaw7l1hu8MaYti0cBChZyQYz sgNPU2U2Pe0igbFqg3xdFIAuDgvWSkJ5r/1jmWvAz3SA56mCDI6Lk1WhiBSCnVxgo6dboPkBI9xnh KFuZ+jlA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1xBpsS-00000005Sfq-1chl; Wed, 30 Sep 2026 08:41:24 +0000 Received: from tor.source.kernel.org ([2600:3c04:e001:324:0:1991:8:25]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1xBpsR-00000005SfA-0sGB for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 30 Sep 2026 08:41:23 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) by tor.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A7F6601DE; Wed, 30 Sep 2026 08:41:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 309C81F000FF; Wed, 30 Sep 2026 08:41:18 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1790757682; bh=sFCvsXZLdxLKdHXwpS2nWXBpKLwepoPfVilE5Kh5WMA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=mhzhUa9uS6ktb80BJuDJGmtAxdhIqUzAP/HXGJ7IC4X+tI8VvcgkCZyJtgdQx2F1r Wrle757SiP9fvECGBPdskTJcuCihZHNIm/GJhqcohJbrZB2acm3rOqVKdBesQcDel3 H5g3r9F32WcMdawUsIdP66lqstfbNKTT1MAPHwlZLn+LtqwQv8RCPfFpRGUam9zGqn F9lPkFmZw32empK7ClckYchozBtr3NMoeTGgUfu1WrZJ1OOOwgPU58lZziwN85tUul Sd7cFoXEFut1UZHCZ/WBLqsiKcQO1NHumtPIYYmPHhxLFt7tDRXPS0/g5bUvJUiaKX 6ozrSPKWxej9A== Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2026 09:41:16 +0100 From: "Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)" To: Mark Brown Cc: Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Shuah Khan , Marc Zyngier , Oliver Upton , Fuad Tabba , Mark Rutland , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] kselftest/arm64: Move exit calls out of fp-stress loads Message-ID: References: <20260901-arm64-fp-stress-kvm-v1-0-31bce995b49b@kernel.org> <20260901-arm64-fp-stress-kvm-v1-3-31bce995b49b@kernel.org> <636db593-b6b6-4338-b9b0-e87c54111d14@sirena.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <636db593-b6b6-4338-b9b0-e87c54111d14@sirena.org.uk> X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 10:56:10PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 05:22:44PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 01, 2026 at 06:06:43PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > No functional change. > > > I don't think this is accurate, as you're changing the register into which a > > value is loaded (x0 instead of x1). > > > That seems to be correct to me, but worth calling out that you're fixing that up > > in the commit message and dropping this line. > > That's actually an unintentional bugfix, the original code just uses > whatever random value was in x0 as an exit code. Probably that was > non-zero so it all works out but still. Yeah absolutely, it seems that we just got lucky before with it which is slightly ludicrous :) -- Cheers, Lorenzo