[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9E0BE1322F2F2246BD820DA9FC397ADE016A3F75@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 06:53:28 +0000
From: "Ren, Qiaowei" <qiaowei.ren@...el.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v6 07/10] x86, mpx: decode MPX instruction to get bound
violation information
On 2014-06-19, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 01:13:48AM +0000, Ren, Qiaowei wrote:
>> On 2014-06-18, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 05:44:13PM +0800, Qiaowei Ren wrote:
>>>
>>> This whole insn decoding machinery above looks like adapted from
>>> arch/x86/lib/insn.c. You should merge it with the generic code in
>>> insn.c instead of homegrowing it here only for the purposes of MPX.
>>> And if it doesn't work for your needs, you should should extend
>>> the generic code to do so.
>
>> Petkov, as we discussed on initial version of this patchset, general
>> insn framework didn't work out well and I have tried to use generic
>> struct insn, insn_field, etc. for obvious benefits.
>
> Let me repeat myself: "And if it doesn't work for your needs, you
> should extend the generic code to do so."
>
> We don't do homegrown almost-copies of generic code.
>
I see. If possible, I will be very happy to use or extend generic code. But due to extra overhead caused by MPX, I have to use MPX specific decoding to do performance optimization.
You can check the discussion on this: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/1/11/190
Thanks,
Qiaowei
Powered by blists - more mailing lists