[PATCH v4 0/8] arm64/sve: First steps towards optimizing syscalls

Mark Brown broonie at kernel.org
Mon Sep 21 08:56:28 EDT 2020

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 01:42:13PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:

> Having three flags to track the fp state and then a bunch of WARN()s
> checking for invalid combinations is quite brittle, so any documentation
> that can help to justify this would certainly be useful!

> I've left a couple of comments on some of the patches, but it looks like
> Dave was reviewing them but stopped short of the meat and potatoes in the
> last two patches. I'd like to see his Ack on those before picking them up,
> as well as testing from somebody with hardware because this is _very_
> subtle stuff.

Right.  The previous version was tested on hardware but I dropped the
Tested-by since I felt there were more changes than I was comfortable
with.  I have to say that a bunch of the things you've flagged up were
things that were requested on previous rounds of review.

> Is it worth me picking some of the preparatory patches up on their own?

I think so, yes - it'd make the series easier to manage and mean there's
less to redo per-patch validation on each time if nothing else.  They
don't do any harm and seem like they'd be useful even if a completely
different approach is adopted.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20200921/7c50f467/attachment.sig>

More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list