Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 24 Mar 2021 16:16:19 +0000 | From | Marc Zyngier <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 05/19] arm64: Add support for trace synchronization barrier |
| |
On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 15:51:14 +0000, Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> wrote: > > On 24/03/2021 13:49, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 09:39:13 +0000, > > Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> wrote: > >> > >> On 23/03/2021 18:21, Catalin Marinas wrote: > >>> Hi Suzuki? > >>> > >>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 12:06:33PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: > >>>> tsb csync synchronizes the trace operation of instructions. > >>>> The instruction is a nop when FEAT_TRF is not implemented. > >>>> > >>>> Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org> > >>>> Cc: Mike Leach <mike.leach@linaro.org> > >>>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> > >>>> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> > >>> > >>> How do you plan to merge these patches? If they go via the coresight > >>> tree: > >>> > >> > >> Ideally all of this should go via the CoreSight tree to have the > >> dependencies solved at one place. But there are some issues : > >> > >> If this makes to 5.13 queue for CoreSight, > >> > >> 1) CoreSight next is based on rc2 at the moment and we have fixes gone > >> into rc3 and later, which this series will depend on. (We could move > >> the next tree forward to a later rc to solve this). > >> > >> 2) There could be conflicts with the kvmarm tree for the KVM host > >> changes (That has dependency on the TRBE definitions patch). > >> > >> If it doesn't make to 5.13 queue, it would be good to have this patch, > >> the TRBE defintions and the KVM host patches queued for 5.13 (not sure > >> if this is acceptable) and we could rebase the CoreSight changes on 5.13 > >> and push it to next release. > >> > >> I am open for other suggestions. > >> > >> Marc, Mathieu, > >> > >> Thoughts ? > > > > I was planning to take the first two patches in 5.12 as fixes (they > > are queued already, and would hopefully land in -rc5). If that doesn't > > fit with the plan, please let me know ASAP. > > Marc, > > I think it would be better to hold on pushing those patches until we > have a clarity on how things will go.
OK. I thought there was a need for these patches to prevent guest access to the v8.4 self hosted tracing feature that went in 5.12 though[1]... Did I get it wrong?
Thanks,
M.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/cbe4ef17-38f9-c555-d838-796be752d4a3@arm.com
-- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
| |