[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150313143928.GB21603@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:39:28 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pekka Riikonen <priikone@....fi>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Suresh Siddha <sbsiddha@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Quentin Casasnovas <quentin.casasnovas@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86/fpu: introduce restore_init_xstate()
On 03/13, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> > - It is not clear why we can't call setup_init_fpu_buf() unconditionally
> > to always create init_xstate_buf().
>
> I also don't understand what the thought behind xstate_enable_boot_cpu()
> and eager_fpu_init_bp() - we do call xstate_enable_boot_cpu() and alloc
> init_xstate_buf and then when we come to
>
> eager_fpu_init
> |-> eager_fpu_init_bp
>
> we get to init it if not initted yet.
>
> When can that ever happen?
This too needs cleanups. But later ;)
Note that xstate_enable_boot_cpu is not called if !cpu_has_xsave, see the
check in xsave_init(). Howver, eagerfpu=on will force eager_fpu_init() which
calls eager_fpu_init_bp().
Btw, I was also going to kill eager_fpu_init_bp(). Probably I will send the
patch today.
> Applied, thanks.
Thanks!
Oleg.
--
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