[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070531142138.60dbc8a9.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 14:21:38 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 8/9] F00F bug fixup for i386 - use conditional calls
On Thu, 31 May 2007 17:07:55 -0400
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca> wrote:
> * Andrew Morton (akpm@...ux-foundation.org) wrote:
>
> > > Use the faster conditional calls for F00F bug handling in do_page_fault.
> > >
> >
> > I guess this means that CONDCALL will be enabled on pretty much all i386,
> > in which case making the whole feature Kconfigurable is starting to look
> > marginal.
> >
> > Perhaps a better approach would have to made this change dependent upon
> > CONDCALL, rather than forcing it on.
> >
>
> Do you mean making X86_F00F_BUG depend on COND_CALL instead of selecting
> it ?
yup
> > > + if (cond_call(fix_f00f, do_f00f_workaround(regs, address)))
> > > + return;
> >
> > We do a cond_call() to an inlined function? That's a bit weird, isn't it?
> >
>
> Yes, but it works :) I will add this information to the documentation.
But why does it work? Did the compiler generate an out-of-line copy
of the function? If so, we'll end up with multiple copies of the function if
there are other callers. If not, the `inline' was pointless.
-
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