[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48A4A7B4.3060008@goop.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:46:28 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
CC: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@...g.org>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86 alternatives : fix LOCK_PREFIX race with preemptible
kernel and CPU hotplug
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> I'm just worried about this comment from Harvey Harrison :
>
> arch/x86/mm/fault.c : is_prefetch()
>
> * Values 0x26,0x2E,0x36,0x3E are valid x86 prefixes.
> * In X86_64 long mode, the CPU will signal invalid
> * opcode if some of these prefixes are present so
> * X86_64 will never get here anyway
>
I would say that comment is wrong. But we'd never put a lock prefix on
a prefetch, so you won't be added a ds prefix either.
J
--
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