Re: [PATCH 00/10] arm64/entry:

[Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>]

On Wed, Apr 08, 2026 at 10:02:28AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2026 at 11:08:36PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 07 2026 at 14:16, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > I've split the series into a prefix of changes for generic irqentry,
> > > followed by changes to the arm64 code. I'm hoping that we can queue the
> > > generic irqentry patches onto a stable branch, or take those via arm64.
> > > The patches are as follows:
> > >
> > > * Patches 1 and 2 are cleanup to the generic irqentry code. These have no
> > >   functional impact, and I think these can be taken regardless of the
> > >   rest of the series.
> > >
> > > * Patches 3 to 5 refactor the generic irqentry code as described above,
> > >   providing separate irqentry_{enter,exit}() functions and providing a
> > >   split form of irqentry_exit_to_kernel_mode() similar to what exists
> > >   for irqentry_exit_to_user_mode(). These patches alone should have no
> > >   functional impact.
> > 
> > I looked through them and I can't find any problem with them. I queued
> > them localy and added the missing kernel doc as I promised you on IRC.
> 
> Thanks! Much appreciated!
> 
> > As I have quite a conflict pending in the tip tree with other changes
> > related to the generic entry code, I suggest that I queue 1-5, tag them
> > for arm64 consumption and merge them into the conflicting branch to
> > avoid trouble with pull request ordering and headaches for the -next
> > people.
> > 
> > Does that work for you?
> 
> That sounds good to me.
> 
> Catalin, Will, does that work for you?

Yes, it does. Thanks!

-- 
Catalin