linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 00/13] arm64: entry: Convert to Generic Entry

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2699bcdc-8d56-7fe9-fa9a-a3d61476e806@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2026 09:28:26 +0800
From: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@...wei.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...nel.org>, <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	<will@...nel.org>, <oleg@...hat.com>, <shuah@...nel.org>, <kees@...nel.org>,
	<luto@...capital.net>, <wad@...omium.org>, <kevin.brodsky@....com>,
	<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <charlie@...osinc.com>, <ldv@...ace.io>,
	<anshuman.khandual@....com>, <mark.rutland@....com>, <ryan.roberts@....com>,
	<thuth@...hat.com>, <song@...nel.org>, <ada.coupriediaz@....com>,
	<broonie@...nel.org>, <pengcan@...inos.cn>, <liqiang01@...inos.cn>,
	<kmal@...k.li>, <dvyukov@...gle.com>, <reddybalavignesh9979@...il.com>,
	<richard.weiyang@...il.com>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 00/13] arm64: entry: Convert to Generic Entry



On 2026/2/3 22:16, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 03 2026 at 21:37, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
>> Currently, x86, Riscv, Loongarch use the Generic Entry which makes
>> maintainers' work easier and codes more elegant. arm64 has already
>> successfully switched to the Generic IRQ Entry in commit
>> b3cf07851b6c ("arm64: entry: Switch to generic IRQ entry"), it is
>> time to completely convert arm64 to Generic Entry.
>>
>> The goal is to bring arm64 in line with other architectures that already
>> use the generic entry infrastructure, reducing duplicated code and
>> making it easier to share future changes in entry/exit paths, such as
>> "Syscall User Dispatch".
>>
>> This patch set is rebased on "sched/core". And the performance
> 
> Why are you using sched/core, which contains a lot of unrelated
> changes. core/entry is the one which has the prerequisites and nothing
> else....

By the way，it looks like core/entry and arm64 for-next/entry have
diverged: the first three patches of this series are already in arm64
for-next/entry but missing from core/entry.
Perhaps the two branches should be reconciled so that both contain the
same baseline.

> 
>