Re: [PATCH 0/2] x86: Use "er" asm constriant for add/sub

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Wed, 9 Sep 2026 20:45:27 -0700
Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 04:20:29AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > I've dropped the branch from IIO. That's fine because it was still being
> > tested and hasn't gone out as non-rebasing yet.  
> 
> Ack, will do first thing tomorrow.
> 
> > Next time I'll maybe find an IRC gateway and ping you on that.  I can't
> > find any reference to that being your preference in the kernel docs.
> > Given you have a helpful page on tip, might be worth adding a note.
> > I might of course be missing it.  
> 
> I'll send you a private note after this.
> 
> > If it goes into a reasonably early rc, I'll just merge the relevant rc
> > rather than needing an immutable. If next cycle, immutable please.  
> 
> First one can go to Linus now, second one would go next cycle. Do you want to
> base ontop of both?

Only need the first patch, so I'll just pick it up by merging
an RC once it this is upstream.

Thanks,

Jonathan

> 
> > I started out a bit grumpy that I had to hold a non trivial series for
> > a cycle because of an x86 bug (having been very happy when David
> > fixed it incredibly quickly!), that got reviewed then disappeared
> > down a hole and didn't look like it would ever be seen again.
> > Meh, got me on a belligerent day.  
> 
> No worries, happens to all of us.
> 
> Thanks!
>