[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D9BEFF6.1030907@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 21:45:42 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"yinghai@...nel.org" <yinghai@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
"lkml20101129@...ton.leun.net" <lkml20101129@...ton.leun.net>,
stable kernel team <stable@...nel.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <Jeremy.Fitzhardinge@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH urgent] x86: Save cr4 to mmu_cr4_features at boot time
On 04/05/2011 09:34 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> Do you mean during resume?
>
> I think we can try to make the ordering more appropriate, but I'm not really
> sure it would be a good idea to do that in the same patch. Probably not.
>
> Also, our current ordering has never been reported to cause problems to anyone.
>
Yes, I mean on resume.
I'm not sure if we'd know since it would manifest as a very early failure.
Anyway, agreed it's not the same patch.
Two things:
1. Do you agree that this is the right place to put this? There seems
to be some other things in __save_processor_state() which puts things in
places outside struct saved_context, but I would like your opinion.
2. While we're at it, why is mtrr_save_fixed_ranges() only called on x86-32?
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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