[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20260127114611.0000381e@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2026 11:46:11 +0000
From: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
CC: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, Catalin
Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Linus
Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Oliver Upton
<oliver.upton@...ux.dev>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, "Dev Jain"
<dev.jain@....com>, Linu Cherian <Linu.Cherian@....com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/13] arm64: mm: Inline __TLBI_VADDR_RANGE() into
__tlbi_range()
On Mon, 19 Jan 2026 17:21:52 +0000
Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com> wrote:
> From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
>
> The __TLBI_VADDR_RANGE() macro is only used in one place and isn't
> something that's generally useful outside of the low-level range
> invalidation gubbins.
>
> Inline __TLBI_VADDR_RANGE() into the __tlbi_range() function so that the
> macro can be removed entirely.
>
> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
> Reviewed-by: Linu Cherian <linu.cherian@....com>
> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
There were some oddly complex constructs in the original macro like
the handling of ttl == 0, so good those got cleaned up in the passing.
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists