[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <yt9dmt23lddv.fsf@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2023 07:45:32 +0200
From: Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
hca@...ux.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] entry: move the exit path to header files
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes:
> On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 03:38:09PM +0200, Sven Schnelle wrote:
>> @@ -465,4 +470,175 @@ irqentry_state_t noinstr irqentry_nmi_enter(struct pt_regs *regs);
>> */
>> void noinstr irqentry_nmi_exit(struct pt_regs *regs, irqentry_state_t irq_state);
>>
>> +static unsigned long exit_to_user_mode_loop(struct pt_regs *regs,
>> + unsigned long ti_work)
>
> Should these things not grow __always_inline/inline when moved into a header?
Yes, indeed. I missed that while doing a quick move of the functions for
testing. I'll fix that when doing a proper patch set for submission.
>> +{
>
>> +}
>> +
>> +
>> +static void exit_to_user_mode_prepare(struct pt_regs *regs)
>
> idem
>
>> +{
>
>> +}
>
>> +static void syscall_exit_work(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long work)
>
> and more..
>
>> +{
>
>> +}
>> +
Powered by blists - more mailing lists