[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250722160556.2216925-2-rkrcmar@ventanamicro.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 18:05:54 +0200
From: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...tanamicro.com>
To: linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>,
Deepak Gupta <debug@...osinc.com>
Subject: [PATCH 0/3] riscv: minor thread_info.cpu improvements
Hello,
I noticed that we give thread_info.cpu two different names in the
assembly, load it as a wider type, and store it suboptimally.
The patches are split for easy review instead of easy backporting:
I could split [2/3] into two patches, and move them before [1/3].
Do we expect someone to actually backport the fixes?
Thanks.
Radim Krčmář (3):
riscv: use TASK_TI_CPU instead of TASK_TI_CPU_NUM
riscv: use lw instead of REG_L when reading int cpu
riscv: pack rv64 thread_info better
arch/riscv/include/asm/asm.h | 2 +-
arch/riscv/include/asm/thread_info.h | 2 +-
arch/riscv/kernel/asm-offsets.c | 1 -
arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S | 2 +-
4 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
--
2.50.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists