[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <4F476B4E0200007800074936@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:49:50 +0000
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To: "Mark Wielaard" <mjw@...hat.com>
Cc: "Frederic Weisbecker (commit_signer:4/25=16%)" <fweisbec@...il.com>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE..." <x86@...nel.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner(maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE...)"
<tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Andi Kleen(commit_signer:5/25=20%)" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"commit_signer:11/25=44%)Ingo Molnar (maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE..."
<mingo@...hat.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"commit_signer:4/25=16%) H. Peter Anvin(maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE..."
<hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86-64: Fix CFI data for common_interrupt
>>> On 21.02.12 at 23:08, Mark Wielaard <mjw@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 03:26:30PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> But provided the specification mandates this, I'm okay with the change
>> in principle. Just that specifying an offset of 0 doesn't look right then.
>
> Yeah, I dunno what I was thinking. The offset should be set to the offset
> that was there before when rsi was pushed. The attached patch does that
> by using the same value as was used at the start of common_interrupt.
> Does that look OK?
As written before, it ought to be
CFI_DEF_CFA rsi,SS+8-RBP /* reg/off reset after def_cfa_expr */
With that, feel free to add
Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>
when you re-submit.
Jan
--
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