[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxtH-UB-=1o93X5Z0o8-5FYryXKBCag3tbahA+q89Gh4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 11:22:56 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] x86/asm/entry/64: drop exit_intr label
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com> wrote:
> - cmpl $0,PER_CPU_VAR(__preempt_count)
> - jnz 1f
> - bt $9,EFLAGS(%rsp) /* interrupts were off? */
> + bt $X86_EFLAGS_IF_BIT,EFLAGS(%rsp) /* interrupts were off? */
Since you're changing this anyway, just change it to use "testb" the
way you did the other place.
Yeah, yeah, it might make it less readable, but
testb $2,EFLAGS+1(%rsp) /* interrupts were off? */
should be smaller and faster than "bt", and the point of this commit
was to make code smaller and faster, no?
Linus
--
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