Hi Catalin,

On Sat, Aug 16, 2025 at 04:19:27PM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h
index bc06691d2062..ab7003cb4724 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h

@@ -7,17 +7,21 @@

 #include <linux/futex.h>
 #include <linux/uaccess.h>
+#include <linux/stringify.h>

 #include <asm/errno.h>

-#define FUTEX_MAX_LOOPS	128 /* What's the largest number you can think of? */
+#define LLSC_MAX_LOOPS	128 /* What's the largest number you can think of? */

I just noticed - you might as well leave the name as is here, especially
if in patch 6 you align down address and use CAS on a 64-bit value as
per Will's comment (and it's no longer LLSC). I think renaming this is
unnecessary.

Okay. I'll restore to use origin name.
But I think LSUI wouldn't be used with CAS according to patch 6's
comments from you and additionally i think
chaning the CAS would make a failure because of
change of unrelated field. i.e)

struct user_structure{
  uint32 futex;
  uint32 some_value;
};

In this case, the change of some_value from user side could make a
failure of futex atomic operation.

So I think it would be better to keep the current LLSC implementation
in LSUI.

Thanks.

--
Sincerely,
Yeoreum Yun