[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B1FEA3F.7090300@goop.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:19:43 -0800
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Hugh Dickens <hugh@...itas.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/paravirt for v2.6.33
On 12/08/09 23:36, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> The old version that actually passed the stack frame was better. Why
>> pick the inferior version?
>>
> Yeah, agreed. I missed that detail.
>
Which detail is that? The whole patch? ;)
> Jeremy, mind sending a patch that updates this code to use the less
> obfuscated 32-bit version, not the 64-bit version? (a delta patch
> against tip:master would be nice, as there's a fair amount of testing in
> the unification change itself already, which we dont want to discard.)
>
Sure.
But I'm not sure I understand the objection to task_pt_regs(); is it
considered deprecated? This patch received quite a lot of discussion
with no mention of it. Should we consider all its uses as suspect?
Would it be better to have something similar which just returns a
pointer to the saved [re]flags, since that's all we care about? That
should be easier to make robust against
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