On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 12:32:06PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > That's why I asked about cmpxchg.h. If you don't want non-cosmetic changes to the existing > > cmpxchg function and consistency of the new key checked function, then obviously the loop > > condition needs to be the same. > > Such a change is fine of course, even though compare-and-swap for one and > two byte patterns don't really matter. I would appreciate if you could send > one or two patches on-top of this series which adds the improved logic to > (now) both variants. > > And, since the question will come up anyway: as soon as we agreed on a > complete patch series, I think we should go for a features branch on s390's > kernel.org tree which would contain the first five patches sent by me plus > potential addon patches provided by you. > This tree can then be pulled in by the kvms390 tree where your kvm specific > patches can then be applied on top. FWIW, pushed a non-stable work-in-progress branch to git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/s390/linux.git wip/cmpxchg_user_key This includes also an updated patch, which fixes the missing shift of the access key.
