On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 7:49 PM Al Viro wrote:
>
> The only source I'd been able to find speaks of >= 60 cycles
> (and possibly much more) for non-pipelined coprocessor instructions;
> the list of such does contain loads and stores to a bunch of registers.
> However, the register in
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 03:49:19AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> The only source I'd been able to find speeks of >= 60 cycles
> (and possibly much more) for non-pipelined coprocessor instructions;
> the list of such does contain loads and stores to a bunch of registers.
> However, the register in
[rmk Cc'd]
On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 09:52:05PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> I can do a 5.7-rc1-based branch with that; depending upon what we end
> up doing for arm and s390 we can always change the calling conventions
> come next cycle ;-/
>
> My impressions after digging through arm side of things:
Le 03/04/2020 à 20:01, Linus Torvalds a écrit :
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:21 AM Christophe Leroy
wrote:
Now we have user_read_access_begin() and user_write_access_begin()
in addition to user_access_begin().
I realize Al asked for this, but I don't think it really adds anything
to the
Hi Christophe,
Thank you for the patch! Yet something to improve:
[auto build test ERROR on linus/master]
[also build test ERROR on next-20200403]
[cannot apply to powerpc/next drm-intel/for-linux-next tip/x86/core v5.6]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to
Hi Christophe,
Thank you for the patch! Yet something to improve:
[auto build test ERROR on linus/master]
[also build test ERROR on next-20200403]
[cannot apply to powerpc/next drm-intel/for-linux-next tip/x86/core v5.6]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to
On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 11:01:10AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:21 AM Christophe Leroy
> wrote:
> >
> > Now we have user_read_access_begin() and user_write_access_begin()
> > in addition to user_access_begin().
>
> I realize Al asked for this, but I don't think it
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:21 AM Christophe Leroy
wrote:
>
> Now we have user_read_access_begin() and user_write_access_begin()
> in addition to user_access_begin().
I realize Al asked for this, but I don't think it really adds anything
to the series.
The "full" makes the names longer, but not
Now we have user_read_access_begin() and user_write_access_begin()
in addition to user_access_begin().
Make it explicit that user_access_begin() provides both read and
write by renaming it user_full_access_begin(). And the same for
user_access_end() which becomes user_full_access_end().
Done
