From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Edmund Grimley-Evans <edmund.grimley-evans@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] arm64/sve: Remove bitrotted comment about syscall behaviour
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 18:11:52 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ede05e2d-0cde-4de1-b2db-d40df19d7075@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Za/9SawqwXmlG/9B@e133380.arm.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 862 bytes --]
On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 05:54:17PM +0000, Dave Martin wrote:
> I still feel that it is iffy practice for userspace to rely on the
> extra bits being zeroed -- I think the architecture hides this
> guarantee anyway whenever you go through a function call confirming to
> the regular procedure call standard (including the syscall wrappers).
> But there may not be a lot of point trying to put people off if we
> can't force them not to rely on it.
I do tend to agree that the requirement to zero is excessively zealous
and that the risk from relaxing it is minor (it's stricter than the
function call ABI), I did leave a sysctl as a mechanism for restoring
compatibility in the case where we did run into issues in my original
series but I didn't expect to need it. If you convince everyone else
I'd be happy to relax things but I don't super care either way.
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-23 18:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-22 20:41 [PATCH 0/4] arm64/fp: Documentation cleanups and clarifications Mark Brown
2024-01-22 20:41 ` [PATCH 1/4] arm64/sve: Remove bitrotted comment about syscall behaviour Mark Brown
2024-01-23 15:44 ` Dave Martin
2024-01-23 17:31 ` Mark Brown
2024-01-23 17:54 ` Dave Martin
2024-01-23 18:11 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2024-01-24 14:04 ` Dave Martin
2024-01-22 20:41 ` [PATCH 2/4] arm64/sme: Fix cut'n'paste in ABI document Mark Brown
2024-01-22 20:41 ` [PATCH 3/4] arm64/fp: Clarify effect of setting an unsupported system VL Mark Brown
2024-01-23 15:49 ` Dave Martin
2024-01-23 18:42 ` Mark Brown
2024-01-24 14:09 ` Dave Martin
2024-01-22 20:41 ` [PATCH 4/4] arm64/sme: Remove spurious 'is' in SME documentation Mark Brown
2024-01-23 15:50 ` Dave Martin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ede05e2d-0cde-4de1-b2db-d40df19d7075@sirena.org.uk \
--to=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=Dave.Martin@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=edmund.grimley-evans@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®