Re: [PATCH -next v7 2/7] arm64: entry: Refactor the entry and exit for exceptions from EL1

[Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2025/8/5 23:06, Ada Couprie Diaz wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 29/07/2025 02:54, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
> 
>> The generic entry code uses irqentry_state_t to track lockdep and RCU
>> state across exception entry and return. For historical reasons, arm64
>> embeds similar fields within its pt_regs structure.
>>
>> In preparation for moving arm64 over to the generic entry code, pull
>> these fields out of arm64's pt_regs, and use a separate structure,
>> matching the style of the generic entry code.
>>
>> No functional changes.
> As far as I understand and checked, we used the two fields
> in an exclusive fashion, so there is indeed no functional change.
>> Suggested-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> [...]
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry-common.c
>> b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry-common.c
>> index 8e798f46ad28..97e0741abde1 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry-common.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry-common.c
>> [...]
>> @@ -475,73 +497,81 @@ UNHANDLED(el1t, 64, error)
>>   static void noinstr el1_abort(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long esr)
>>   {
>>       unsigned long far = read_sysreg(far_el1);
>> +    arm64_irqentry_state_t state;
>>   -    enter_from_kernel_mode(regs);
>> +    state = enter_from_kernel_mode(regs);
> Nit: There is some inconsistencies with some functions splitting state's
> definition
> and declaration (like el1_abort here), while some others do it on the
> same line
> (el1_undef() below for example).
> In some cases it is welcome as the entry function is called after some
> other work,
> but here for example it doesn't seem to be beneficial ?

Both methods can keep the modifications to `enter_from_kernel_mode()` on
the same line as the original code, which will facilitate code review.

I think it is also fine to do it on the same line here, which can reduce
one line code, which method is better may be a matter of personal opinion.

>>       local_daif_inherit(regs);
>>       do_mem_abort(far, esr, regs);
>>       local_daif_mask();
>> -    exit_to_kernel_mode(regs);
>> +    exit_to_kernel_mode(regs, state);
>>   }
>>     static void noinstr el1_pc(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long esr)
>>   {
>>       unsigned long far = read_sysreg(far_el1);
>> +    arm64_irqentry_state_t state;
>>   -    enter_from_kernel_mode(regs);
>> +    state = enter_from_kernel_mode(regs);
>>       local_daif_inherit(regs);
>>       do_sp_pc_abort(far, esr, regs);
>>       local_daif_mask();
>> -    exit_to_kernel_mode(regs);
>> +    exit_to_kernel_mode(regs, state);
>>   }
>>     static void noinstr el1_undef(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long
>> esr)
>>   {
>> -    enter_from_kernel_mode(regs);
>> +    arm64_irqentry_state_t state = enter_from_kernel_mode(regs);
>> +
>>       local_daif_inherit(regs);
>>       do_el1_undef(regs, esr);
>>       local_daif_mask();
>> -    exit_to_kernel_mode(regs);
>> +    exit_to_kernel_mode(regs, state);
>>   }
>>
>> [...]
> Other than the small nit:
> Reviewed-by: Ada Couprie Diaz <ada.coupriediaz@xxxxxxx>
> 
>