From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754554AbbE1St5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2015 14:49:57 -0400 Received: from mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de ([81.169.146.161]:10548 "EHLO mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754364AbbE1Sts (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2015 14:49:48 -0400 X-RZG-AUTH: :ImkWY2CseuihIZy6ZWWciR6unPh5JPSWE7VxbdUCFBN5njG7Q28CH4RMeHzjXw== X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00 Message-ID: <556761D2.9040908@dawncrow.de> Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 20:43:30 +0200 From: =?windows-1252?Q?Andr=E9_Hentschel?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Will Deacon CC: "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , Russell King - ARM Linux , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" , Catalin Marinas , Nathan Lynch Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: Preserve the user r/w register tpidr_el0 on context switch and fork in compat mode References: <555CB3D5.7000307@dawncrow.de> <20150527143648.GA4232@arm.com> In-Reply-To: <20150527143648.GA4232@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am 27.05.2015 um 16:36 schrieb Will Deacon: > Hi André, > > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 05:18:29PM +0100, André Hentschel wrote: >> From: André Hentschel >> >> Since commit a4780adeefd042482f624f5e0d577bf9cdcbb760 the user writeable TLS >> register on ARM is preserved per thread. >> >> This patch does it analogous to the ARM patch, but for compat mode on ARM64. >> >> Signed-off-by: André Hentschel >> Cc: Will Deacon >> Cc: Catalin Marinas >> >> --- >> This patch is against Linux 4.1-rc1 (b787f68c36d49bb1d9236f403813641efa74a031) >> >> v2: Trying to address suggestions by Will Deacon >> >> @Will Deacon: The macro you suggested is not helpful it seems, instead i introduced >> static functions. They also could be macros i guess, but it seems >> much cleaner to me to use functions as it only affects one file. > > I wanted to understand in more detail why the macro didn't work out for > you, so I trued hacking together my own version of the patch (see below). > It seems to hold up to light testing, so it would be good to know where > you ran into problems. > >> Should the final version be send to rmk's patchtracker or will someone >> else pick it up? > > This is an arm64 patch, so either Catalin or me will pick it up directly > when it's ready to be merged. > > Will Your patch works, you can add me as Tested-by. :) My bad was that i didn't know that macro style (returning a variable conditionally with c code) Sadly no new commit by me :(