On Wed, Jan 01, 2025 at 11:57:54AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 10:52:14AM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 29, 2024 at 08:46:21PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/context.c b/arch/arm64/mm/context.c
> > > index cd72576ae2b7..bbc2708fe928 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/context.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/context.c
> > > @@ -35,8 +35,8 @@ static unsigned long *pinned_asid_map;
> > > #define ASID_FIRST_VERSION (1UL << asid_bits)
> > >
> > > #define NUM_USER_ASIDS ASID_FIRST_VERSION
> > > -#define asid2idx(asid) ((asid) & ~ASID_MASK)
> > > -#define idx2asid(idx) asid2idx(idx)
> > > +#define ctxid2asid(asid) ((asid) & ~ASID_MASK)
> > > +#define asid2ctxid(asid, genid) ((asid) | (genid))
> >
> > Is this patch needed only to ensure that commit c0900d15d31c ("arm64:
> > Ensure bits ASID[15:8] are masked out when the kernel uses 8-bit ASIDs")
> > applies cleanly? There's no functional dependency between them, just
>
> Yes.
>
> > adjacent lines being changed by the two patches. Up to you if you prefer
> > to cherry-pick another patch, it is harmless. Otherwise I'm happy to
> > send backports for commit c0900d15d31c separately.
>
> Even without a functional need, taking this dependency means that future
> commits in this area of code will continue to apply cleanly, and we'll
> diverge less from upstream.
>
> If taking this commit is harmless, then I'd rather have it and not a
> custom backport.
Fine by me. Thanks for clarifying.
--
Catalin
