[PATCH 00/20] arm64: FPSIMD/SVE/SME fixes + re-eanble SME

[Mark Rutland]

On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 10:48:43AM +0900, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 04:25:03PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > These patches fix a number of problems in the FPSIMD/SVE/SME code, and
> > finally re-enable SME support.
> 
> I've given everything a first pass and aside from previously noted
> changelog nit on patch 17 which don't affect the resulting change this
> all looks good.

Thanks.

Since you haven't commented on patch 17 here, and this is the first
version of that patch, I assume that by "previously noted" you're
referring to the ptrace ABI discussion we had when I posted the
preparatory fixes, i.e.

  https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20250404174435.3288106-1-mark.rutland@arm.com/
  https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/45cb5ce9-39af-4c42-b68d-fa506b67bc55@sirena.org.uk/
  https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/Z_VS5wvn0C7tdjbo@J2N7QTR9R3.cambridge.arm.com/
  https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/879811da-d0f0-4b0b-bca4-df68ff9bf394@sirena.org.uk/#t

If you have a specific objection, I can consider massaging the wording,
but as it stands I don't see any problem with the commit message on
patch 17. There clearly was an incorrect assumption during development,
as indicated by the code, the comments, and the documentation. Providing
that context makes review *much* easier.

> I'm on holiday for a week and a bit more so probably
> won't have time to review properly, other than a couple of the smaller
> patches.

No problem. If it's possible to throw any automated testing at this,
that'd be much appreciated.

Mark.