On 2026/2/4 20:07, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 04, 2026 at 11:39:34AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 04 2026 at 09:28, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> The first three patches of this series are ARM specific and have nothing
>> to do with the queued core/entry changes in tip. They are independent of
>> each other and these three ARM64 changes have no business in my tree.
>>
>> If the ARM64 folks want to apply the rest of your series then they have
>> to pull the core/entry branch into their for-next/core branch first so
>> the whole thing builds.
>>
>> But given that the merge window opens on sunday, this is probably moot
>> anyway and the rest of this series can go on top of rc1 in the ARM64
>> tree w/o any further complications.
>
> Yup, the rest of the series (beyond what we've both queued) also needs
> some more review so this is all post -rc1 material.
Sounds good; I’m looking forward to more expert eyes on the remaining
patches once -rc1 is out.
>
> In the meantime, thanks for picking up the generic bits.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Will
>
