Hi Will, On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 14:48:11 +0100, Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 04:10:51PM +0100, Joey Gouly wrote: > > To allow using newer instructions that current assemblers don't know about, > > replace the `at` instruction with the underlying SYS instruction. > > > > Signed-off-by: Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@xxxxxxx> > > Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> > > Cc: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_asm.h | 3 ++- > > arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/hyp/fault.h | 2 +- > > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > Marc -- what would you like to do with this patch? I think the POE series > is really close now, so ideally I'd queue the lot on a branch in arm64 > and you could pull the first ~10 patches into kvmarm if you need 'em. > > Would what work for you, or did you have something else in mind (since > this one is also included in your series adding nv support for AT). Is there any progress on this front? I am quite eager to queue the AT series, but the dependency on this patch is preventing me to do so. I can see there are outstanding questions on the POE series, so I was wondering if we should consider reversing the dependency: I can create a stable branch with this single patch, which you can pull as a prefix of the POE series. Please let me know what you prefer. Thanks, M. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
