Hey Marc, On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 09:01:18AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > 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. That sounds like a good idea. The uaccess discussion seems to have stalled and I don't really want to merge the series without concluding that. So please go ahead with this single patch and I'll pull it in if things start moving again. Will
