From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 4C1AC322C6D; Fri, 30 Jan 2026 15:01:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769785314; cv=none; b=GywXkTslyto0UldK2PWHAgTB2YXEZN7nbYrwVT+Xo15yAjrQ7WgEU/1ngMXJ1lzVKTnWV53VvHWupfp8lHlhNyy0RLJ0tfuMZUSjXxBrEi8/Mb7NuiiSg19md3Fdcv4eKkpaHcK+hsHocEAyz++xMQrg22QtVuIGe6hmNh4+0m0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769785314; c=relaxed/simple; bh=jcI6FHxj+KHvDboDOSm66IUrFEGKvpzUg4I0CKx4Wrc=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=pNpS8ztbwWZUsIoUvmdmpmE0g3OUqehAatslIEdQcMsTBKIgqYcRs68Tz5xniysbSLfy/6KPBIZpqRUpmBNrjmx07RiSBrBgELwnD1bHf3t5w+2VewSGzAPOYQ+b+8T41eorR2s8OVqsVjkWM6wrmqG8I87BdRWXCFrNVIQqomE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=stFcnulc; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="stFcnulc" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E69C1C4CEF7; Fri, 30 Jan 2026 15:01:52 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1769785313; bh=jcI6FHxj+KHvDboDOSm66IUrFEGKvpzUg4I0CKx4Wrc=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=stFcnulcSsZzbYrPkxAQSO6XbNqjmD/rteaSiwiuuy488UrObmFC1bfAGGRRgYqRr 8Vdb1dPSvXTo7ElbWqgIXwgB1JpoaPBBz1lHdJfjiGZ8EQSK70V6e6Dv3ICK/lCUWZ sEQQ/CPBt3WLCLoqm9i1tKQZH86SWgpNmS50n5IkGZEaG3RaldVd0Zqfx2rHITTrth soMO2df1BNV08yrlcVlt66aVe3hPsjMmd+c7VSRMgiU7f1cEly7p6UsOY8D1vQTkZu FauITEOLZuCSvz3xXsGKm7CvfWnD1wo62Zxqhy3s81j9HYeR6+iRMPeMX9dk7UTvoF 1o2yo7ms0+BTQ== From: Thomas Gleixner To: Kevin Brodsky , Jinjie Ruan , catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, oleg@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, luto@kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org, kees@kernel.org, wad@chromium.org, deller@gmx.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, charlie@rivosinc.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, anshuman.khandual@arm.com, song@kernel.org, ryan.roberts@arm.com, thuth@redhat.com, ada.coupriediaz@arm.com, broonie@kernel.org, pengcan@kylinos.cn, liqiang01@kylinos.cn, kmal@cock.li, dvyukov@google.com, reddybalavignesh9979@gmail.com, richard.weiyang@gmail.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 09/14] entry: Rework syscall_exit_to_user_mode_work() for arch reuse In-Reply-To: <13d22231-d84a-4993-9a69-e3922e45b500@arm.com> References: <20260128031934.3906955-1-ruanjinjie@huawei.com> <20260128031934.3906955-10-ruanjinjie@huawei.com> <56978cb8-f9de-4bf2-b1fc-b5564fec7387@arm.com> <3bfa15fc-187e-4c39-9cb3-a936fdd443b2@arm.com> <87o6mbl82j.ffs@tglx> <13d22231-d84a-4993-9a69-e3922e45b500@arm.com> Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2026 16:01:50 +0100 Message-ID: <87cy2rkuu9.ffs@tglx> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain On Fri, Jan 30 2026 at 14:27, Kevin Brodsky wrote: > On 30/01/2026 11:16, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>> Agreed, the comments are essentially describing what each function >>> calls; considering how short they are, directly reading the code is >>> probably easier. >> No. Please keep them. There is more information in them than just the >> pure 'what's' called. > > That is true before this patch, where it made sense to highlight that > exit_to_user_mode() must still be called after this function (without > re-enabling interrupts). With this patch there is however much more that > this function is lacking, and it feels very likely that comments will go > out of sync with exactly what syscall_exit_to_user_mode() calls. > > I suppose we could simply point the reader to > syscall_exit_to_user_mode() to find out what else is needed, and keep > the comment about the calling convention being the same. I've picked up _all_ four entry changes and reworked the comments and changelogs already. Those patches should have been bundled together at the start of the series anyway so they can be picked up independently without going through loops and hoops. When will people learn to think beyond the brim of their architecture tea cup? I'll go and apply them on top of 6.19-rc1 into core/entry and merge that into the scheduler branch to resolve the resulting conflict. ARM64 can either pull that branch or wait until the next rc1 comes out. Thanks, tglx