[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZV283NfE/K5zLXDD@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 00:33:32 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Samuel Holland <samuel.holland@...ive.com>
Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Harry Wentland <harry.wentland@....com>,
Leo Li <sunpeng.li@....com>,
Rodrigo Siqueira <Rodrigo.Siqueira@....com>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
Pan Xinhui <Xinhui.Pan@....com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] riscv: Add support for kernel-mode FPU
On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 07:05:13PM -0800, Samuel Holland wrote:
> +static inline void kernel_fpu_begin(void)
> +{
> + preempt_disable();
> + fstate_save(current, task_pt_regs(current));
> + csr_set(CSR_SSTATUS, SR_FS);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void kernel_fpu_end(void)
> +{
> + csr_clear(CSR_SSTATUS, SR_FS);
> + fstate_restore(current, task_pt_regs(current));
> + preempt_enable();
> +}
Is there any critical reason to inline these two? I'd much rather see
them out of line and exported instead of the low-level helpers.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists