From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 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.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40DCE3DCD9B; Tue, 17 Mar 2026 15:23:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773760985; cv=none; b=f52DKhKts1xLrn7ySlK4OsH0OJrIvNPGuvcyGADhKdH5j+fbmGjMoSp3NRnh0kb36YoEUL9pqquiCTAVdqyqc+zBg5HO0knsaWR2I65BMeATweRPsT+Sax3Ikmpkp6BSI/YaQMYDDeU2hByN4gI0SehKC4x5DFWH0hPKy/TdOOo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773760985; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Fy1htI4UODIx2yytutlDuDgTWi+tpbxGjfBCNjXDPiM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=u70L1WrXrof8crHAXjUejVnCQQ26v6+Zn5eU8qzNIYYHAbW5pnsvl0t620IL8jVOdueFjtGLdR6KNCHNfTH5SfCcgS8OkyNM5Lno4OqkrKWCcGla97D1q6EmEoZ/88p0Hn+V6Rhwny3SxZ+3m/WATtiNvj2WGWzBhsJIlAuRzhw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=xqcwabCE; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="xqcwabCE" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version :References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=hxZfwk4j7fdh1lLHSbjgNk4ZAr0h0feEpqn4ubU4naE=; b=xqcwabCE69yEIxL7BCd8Kp9Ca9 w/aDIbFY2rENA6SoyzZMufk7C0Q1f8AxmWO6/ho14KS3q+HoEqkIiKiCSbUu/i4gnB4l08quPbxH3 VA9aUlbGdDsSSkA5vtxWYuP7WAHtHZjGCF/GQwzPvaYRwf/nR+bwN/IaBVdLvVe6PtdhYNLVrB2hG 9Sfk3IZHT7j7bNEGL15AgTgNEemlEVgczkPFeshusCZIlHcd+urBs7Mm/9jMRyM5mfIIvrOMAWZXG 40oEm9sAdyIS9NXc+2mWNJNsDcMDwGmOS1yfLnVyDeghJW37cCvmhDXp8vaRMWsiit87dJEPAap1Z ZE+w8ibQ==; Received: from hch by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1w2WG7-00000006jSt-0tEp; Tue, 17 Mar 2026 15:23:03 +0000 Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2026 08:23:03 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Ard Biesheuvel Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Eric Biggers , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Jason A . Donenfeld" , Herbert Xu , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib/crypto: arm64: Drop checks for CONFIG_KERNEL_MODE_NEON Message-ID: References: <20260314175049.26931-1-ebiggers@kernel.org> <38a37b02-602a-42a4-8974-b8a6cd750c3e@app.fastmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 04:08:24PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Mar 2026, at 15:45, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 12:09:34PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel > >> > >> Actually, we should just get rid of CONFIG_KERNEL_MODE_NEON entirely on arm64, although there is some code shared with ARM that would still need some checks. But anything that is arm64-only should never look at this at all. > > > > I'll also drop it from the XOR series. > > > > Ack - mind cc'ing me on the next revision? Sure. > > > Talking about which (sorry for highjacking this thread), arm32 and arm64 > > have completely different neon XOR implementations, where arm32 uses > > #pragma GCC optimize "tree-vectorize" or clang auto-vectorization of > > the generic C implementation, and arm64 uses intrinsics. Is there any > > chance those could share a single implementation? > > If we're migrating the XOR arch code to live under lib (if that is what > you are proposing), That's what is happening right now: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-raid/20260311115754.ca2206d1428c49c3bd6e93cf@linux-foundation.org/T/#t