Message ID | 20240701110317.99631-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | ARM: vfp: Introduce vfp_state_hold() to acquire VFP context. | expand |
On 2024-07-01 12:56:52 [+0200], To linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org wrote: > There was a bug report on PREEMPT_RT which made me look into VFP locking > on ARM. The usage of local_bh_disable() to ensure exclusive access to > the VFP unit is not working on PREEMPT_RT because the softirq context is > preemptible. > > This series introduces vfp_vfp_state_hold() which does the right thing. is this okay now? Sebastian
On 2024-08-08 11:17:36 [+0200], To linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org wrote: > On 2024-07-01 12:56:52 [+0200], To linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org wrote: > > There was a bug report on PREEMPT_RT which made me look into VFP locking > > on ARM. The usage of local_bh_disable() to ensure exclusive access to > > the VFP unit is not working on PREEMPT_RT because the softirq context is > > preemptible. > > > > This series introduces vfp_vfp_state_hold() which does the right thing. > > is this okay now? The patches were reviewed by Ard and I fixed the remaining parts as suggested by Russell in my v5. Arnd suggested recently to submit them to the patch system if there is nothing outstanding which I just did. 9423/1 - 9426/1. Sebastian