[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87931a27-36e4-4c6f-b97c-206493ec3da0@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 14:10:40 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@....com>
Cc: catalin.marinas@....com, pcc@...gle.com, will@...nel.org,
anshuman.khandual@....com, joey.gouly@....com, maz@...nel.org,
oliver.upton@...ux.dev, frederic@...nel.org,
hardevsinh.palaniya@...iconsignals.io, samuel.holland@...ive.com,
palmer@...osinc.com, charlie@...osinc.com,
thiago.bauermann@...aro.org, bgray@...ux.ibm.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, puranjay@...nel.org, david@...hat.com,
yang@...amperecomputing.com, mbenes@...e.cz,
joel.granados@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/7] kselftest/arm64/mte: preparation for mte store
only test
On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 10:48:01AM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> Since ARMv8.9, FEAT_MTE_STORE_ONLY can be used to restrict raise of tag
> check fault on store operation only.
>
> This patch is preparation for testing FEAT_MTE_STORE_ONLY
> It shouldn't change test result.
Not verified that that's the case but from inspection:
Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
> - mte_switch_mode(mode, MTE_ALLOW_NON_ZERO_TAG);
> + mte_switch_mode(mode, MTE_ALLOW_NON_ZERO_TAG, false);
> item = ARRAY_SIZE(sizes);
I was going to say on the other series that the boolean flags are kind
of awkward from a readability point of view, but equally it doesn't feel
worth it to make these arguments enums so I'll just mention it but it's
fine either way.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists