[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOJsxLHwvMZaR-09u2iTpu2ksCxypLJXG0Cw6Aeu5zWcLYYxpg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 12:41:29 +0300
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
To: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>
Cc: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86: make 64 bit ret_from_fork a little more similar
to 32 bit
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com> wrote:
> The 64 bit version resets EFLAGS before calling schedule_tail() and
> therefore leaves EFLAGS.IF clear. 32 bit resets EFLAGS after calling
> schedule_tail() and therefore leaves EFLAGS.IF set. I don't think
> there is any practical difference between the two approaches since
> interrupts are actually reenabled within schedule_tail
> (schedule_tail->finish_task_switch->finish_lock_switch->raw_spin_unlock_irq->...->local_irq_enable)
> so arbitrarily pick the 32 bit version and make 64 bit look like that.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>
> Cc: x86@...nel.org
Reviewed-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
--
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