From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A5A93AF66E for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2026 09:06:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775639192; cv=none; b=omDjVX89YNdSkBiLSQFagcI78ujLtiseE5mChctl5L+ujE0iIvhmVU9DTniEu02QwtSYOR/5Y/RO0a/TS/GsN3OMZ/Xl/ox7mm/vI6Gl3b6+cw3eTsHBpm1/rb9ayIIeOd3LNfrf2RmfLpA1nisnQiNH+nEh7Ogx6kGT6VFLw7s= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775639192; c=relaxed/simple; bh=svANZbtAWMdqyJ33V6pOKrPbguC6VQewAGz+MZPH/ko=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=oGEMzi987kgn5XskkGCo/GGGjcQKAhQaMGX1rQ48FQ55CR8fADGLQMB09fk6/5pzcF699iz7XXa1xG0ziXOgVpd040gshojulAFRnYCcgKK2e46cRHZ8kxpW3f5DPnmLPHvGP3CXROB93H9ddyz4Ekj/OOmkMH/nxX18B+Qdy2o= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=arm.com header.i=@arm.com header.b=RLE8XOyn; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=arm.com header.i=@arm.com header.b="RLE8XOyn" Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1724E1516; Wed, 8 Apr 2026 02:06:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from arm.com (usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com [172.31.20.19]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4122C3F641; Wed, 8 Apr 2026 02:06:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=arm.com; s=foss; t=1775639187; bh=svANZbtAWMdqyJ33V6pOKrPbguC6VQewAGz+MZPH/ko=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=RLE8XOyncR3PHPRtpXMvbagvrf4LxKJfwZFF8sTJu//FBTzvDPKfm327dzCnu2fw5 4seZjBi5+X5GjBv9M3hyfDDPQpG1QMBPEh7o6INxf4CMXwciXAD9+hKjHhKXq0zPt8 zH+HDrcy+sbxm0X8aN5lnvT+dWHKC+PK4Zuzm91Q= Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2026 10:06:23 +0100 From: Catalin Marinas To: Mark Rutland Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Will Deacon , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Andy Lutomirski , Peter Zijlstra , ada.coupriediaz@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ruanjinjie@huawei.com, vladimir.murzin@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] arm64/entry: Message-ID: References: <20260407131650.3813777-1-mark.rutland@arm.com> <87cy0a4gx7.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; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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