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 340F2FC6172 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2024 20:55:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:Content-Type: List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id: In-Reply-To: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=tdl8qhArjKWdDmrFGDvE0PTtctgj2Ch9jW3sVoCpZd8=; b=XvaA8SdaBXK5hMUQCWi+M4PkkX gnpXSxJ6O9YNN/SXJFywoYZBN6Ld7bqKT5Qrnul9XNgv8Gv6COjKZXPejD0+7BN16kGSpBjIpeDzH ctziwSq9FQ0wJfG61ZM73bFGwCPsiXQjxYGnpwcAHyrCkS55qjqztMsyVezBkIzIhmSmbXJ7vBjvk dCmv0iAaUfE8LswwRGzrK3jW4uX3QxCooydXwH+uvovvKCAKgjHsIiKMaL7/rXQwTKdGKAd1d1U3I uAe9CZcsgdi9smpy5L1LYYfXFZmKv9gTHSXf92vWcgY9/vDSKqWV4fhQYgUbF3kG6zYhdAwE28OaF av2Le/Dw==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1spDK6-0000000H73C-1omi; Fri, 13 Sep 2024 20:55:22 +0000 Received: from nyc.source.kernel.org ([2604:1380:45d1:ec00::3]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1spDK3-0000000H713-3kLj for linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 13 Sep 2024 20:55:21 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by nyc.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5462FA45930; Fri, 13 Sep 2024 20:55:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D44C4C4CEC0; Fri, 13 Sep 2024 20:55:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1726260918; bh=aopswYxzXj27YTJCMD2U69tvjPOb1vRJvbOIEzxXm5I=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=X8H/D0Jz1dIbUFqfZt0x1TopUD28Jmg0HSxymL5pM1RGOq7KnGMYdxkLs6oOQ51WF JkGeuq+ehOg8KwUmbJsA+CDovbNpdf709XuunXepqhh1vwxKu37noAEMUECjQHBGCJ HbSdWiD/HhZJOntuHrskCRFflI3HSYB41ML2sQE/rhmkw5/DBfDlSqHjjf/PvgZSSv 0zdy1stfwg9w2xIUeHQTUfSXkh5yy1Ns0yS1h5vQg1TcHUtAAvLhUB/P2swFs5E643 vihvlLxTkCLQ8YxkzjojJvo9rgY1HfQi2B7EL4rn5z9HGd8mDUi/xYQda9LjXp9IKw L/HDUYE9zZATg== Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 21:55:14 +0100 From: Conor Dooley To: Juhan Jin Cc: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, peterz@infradead.org, jpoimboe@kernel.org, juhanj2@illinois.edu, alexghiti@rivosinc.com, samuel.holland@sifive.com, palmer@dabbelt.com, ajones@ventanamicro.com Subject: Re: Is RISC-V Static Call worth implementing ? Message-ID: <20240913-spearfish-feeble-4c0032f37484@spud> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20240913_135520_005051_1BAA5434 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 10.38 ) X-BeenThere: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2552264077598168619==" Sender: "linux-riscv" Errors-To: linux-riscv-bounces+linux-riscv=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org --===============2552264077598168619== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="QqpRhOTcaGbBCead" Content-Disposition: inline --QqpRhOTcaGbBCead Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 03:05:33AM -0500, Juhan Jin wrote: > Hi folks, >=20 > I=E2=80=99m interested in implementing Static Call for RISC-V, and I want= to > know whether it is worth the efforts to implement Static Call for > RISC-V. >=20 > Does the aforementioned benefits merit a RISC-V static call implementatio= n=20 > (especially inline)? Or are the benefits so negligible that it=E2=80=99s = simply not=20 > worth the effort to do a RISC-V implementation? Pretty sure we've talked about wanting it before - Samuel, Alex, Drew Jones or Palmer might remember best what exactly we wanted it for however, as I do not. --QqpRhOTcaGbBCead Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEABYIAB0WIQRh246EGq/8RLhDjO14tDGHoIJi0gUCZuSmsgAKCRB4tDGHoIJi 0sl/AQDIwiYUFnBIzSsSid5+oW+9yL/OVKoQ+CIBA9FPQFwFDgEAtnu8Suqqd+VS zmun8I3E4owtbVNlM+QA/rjtwq7prg4= =u/AW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --QqpRhOTcaGbBCead-- --===============2552264077598168619== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ linux-riscv mailing list linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv --===============2552264077598168619==--