On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 09:17:46AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote: > On 1/13/2016 2:26 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > >On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:59:54AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote: > >>This might be buried in email storm during the holiday. Just want to double > >>check the status. I'm supposed there is no objection for getting it merged > >>in upstream? > > > >Sorry, when you replied with: > > > >>I think we could just extend the "signal delay send" approach from x86-64 > >>to arm64, which is currently used by x86-64 on -rt kernel only. > > > >I understood that you were going to fix -rt, so I dropped this pending > >anything more from you. > > > >What's the plan? > > Sorry for the confusion. The "signal delay send" approach used by x86-64 -rt > should be not necessary for arm64 right now. Reenabling interrupt is still > the preferred approach. > > Since x86-64 has per-CPU IST exception stack, so preemption has to be > disabled all the time. However, it is not applicable to other architectures > for now, including arm64. Actually, we grew support for a separate IRQ stack in the recent merge window. Does that change things here, or are you referring to something else? Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
