[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090830114329.GA9038@liondog.tnic>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 13:43:30 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <petkovbb@...glemail.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, mingo@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kjwinchester@...il.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, borislav.petkov@....com,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86, AMD: Disable wrongly set
X86_FEATURE_LAHF_LM CPUID bit
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:44:30PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 08/24/2009 10:52 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 01:34:07PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> Looks reasonable... although part of me wonders if having a pointer to
> >> an array containing the entire register file in and out is even better,
> >> of if I'm just overengineering at this point.
> >
> > Hmm, let's have necessity determine that. I can only think of %edi being
> > used as an input reg to rd/wrmsr beside %ecx but it could be very well
> > that some other x86 hardware uses other regs too. Do we actually need
> > all regs or a two should suffice?
> >
>
> Hard to know. In theory we shouldn't need ESI and EDI either!
>
> As I said, I wouldn't have worried about it at all if it wasn't for
> paravirt_ops turning these things into ABIs.
Ok, here's what I could come up with. It seems to work (tested only on a
Fam10h box), it should cover all our msr needs for now and alleviate the
need for adding yet another paravirt_ops member.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
--
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