[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150315164948.GA28149@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 17:49:48 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: 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>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: [PATCH RFC 0/2] x86/fpu: avoid "xstate_fault" in
xsave_user/xrestore_user
Hello.
Another a bit off-topic change, but I'd like to finish the discussion
with Quentin.
And almost cosmetic. But I added the RFC tag to make it clear that this
needs a review from someone who understands gcc-asm better. In particular
I am worried if that dummy "=m" (*buf) is actually correct.
And I agree with Quentin, user_insn/check_insn can be improved to allow
clobbers, more flexible "output", etc. But imo they already can make this
code look a bit better, and "xstate_fault" must die eventually.
Quentin, could you review? I can't find your last email about this change,
and I can't recall if you agree or not.
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