linux-kernel - Re: [tip:x86/apic] x86/apic: Enable x2APIC without interrupt remapping under KVM

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 5 Aug 2009 15:26:08 +0300
From:	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	sheng@...ux.intel.com, avi@...hat.com,
	linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/apic] x86/apic: Enable x2APIC without interrupt
	remapping under KVM

On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 03:19:23PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 02:16:21PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > +static inline void x2apic_force_phys()
> > > +{
> > > +}
> > 
> > Sigh. Have you tested this patche and have you looked at the 
> > resultig compiler output?
> > 
> I haven't looked and compiler output. What is wrong with it?
> Is defining this function as #define would be batter?
> 
Actually I made it a define initially and tested with it. Later I change
it to be inline and apparently tested only with x2apic enabled. I see the
problem now. Do you want it to be define or properly defined empty inline
function like any other function in this code?

--
			Gleb.
--
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/