[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 16:22:15 -0800
From: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...il.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] x86, traps: Track entry into and exit from IST context
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 03:52:10PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> Dunno. Tony and Borislav -- when do you want the IST stack switching
>> stuff?
>
> I'd leave that up to Tony and his testbench. I mean, we can hammer on
> it as much as we can and it can pass all testing locally but the real
> fun starts once it hits upstream and for that it doesn't matter which
> release... IMHO.
So what was the net result of all the mode/RCU discussions?
Do I need some extra magic incantations in the final version
of do_machine_check() beyond what was in this patch:
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/546d169211835aded@agluck-desk.sc.intel.com
to make everything happy?
-Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists