Re: [PATCH dovetail v8 11/11] riscv: dovetail: add core support

On Sun, 2026-05-31 at 07:53 +0200, Tobias Schaffner wrote:

[snip]

> -void do_trap(struct pt_regs *regs, int signo, int code, unsigned long addr)
> +static void do_trap_raw(struct pt_regs *regs, int signo, int code, unsigned long addr)

I wonder why this can't just stay do_trap() ...

>  {
>  	struct task_struct *tsk = current;
>  
> -	if (!mark_trap_entry(regs))
> -		return;
> -

We could call mark_trap_entry() here ...

>  	if (show_unhandled_signals && unhandled_signal(tsk, signo)
>  	    && printk_ratelimit()) {
>  		pr_info("%s[%d]: unhandled signal %d code 0x%x at 0x" REG_FMT,
> @@ -150,6 +152,14 @@ void do_trap(struct pt_regs *regs, int signo, int code, unsigned long addr)
>  	}
>  
>  	force_sig_fault(signo, code, (void __user *)addr);

and we add the mark_trap_exit() call here .

> +}
> +
> +void do_trap(struct pt_regs *regs, int signo, int code, unsigned long addr)
> +{
> +	if(!mark_trap_entry(regs))
> +		return;
> +
> +	do_trap_raw(regs, signo, code, addr);
>  
>  	mark_trap_exit(regs);
>  }

That part would get unnecessary.

> @@ -160,7 +170,7 @@ static void do_trap_error(struct pt_regs *regs, int signo, int code,
>  	current->thread.bad_cause = regs->cause;
>  
>  	if (user_mode(regs)) {
> -		do_trap(regs, signo, code, addr);
> +		do_trap_raw(regs, signo, code, addr);

This is the single caller of do_trap_raw() and I'm quite sure that this
is not correct as we would not enable hard_irqs when handling a error
trap over userland...


>  	} else {
>  		/*
>  		 * Dovetail: If we trapped from kernel space, either
> @@ -177,6 +187,8 @@ static void do_trap_error(struct pt_regs *regs, int signo, int code,
>  #define DO_ERROR_INFO(name, signo, code, str)	

That was my final finding. I think I'm done with reviewing.

Btw: I'm seeing some strange behavior on 7.1-rc5 on x86. The system is
slower than expected and triggering some test timeouts. Rebase to -rc6
is already done. Trying to update all the necessary branches now.

Best regards,
Florian