[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwe4ODQo=VzM+hbM+NJamF7MvMhFAvfUiyTdBFtA5yzLg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 10:08:01 -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] x86/asm/entry/64: Use shorter MOVs from segmers registers
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> I don't object to the patch, but did we actually confirm that it
> always overwrites all of %ecx?
Just to clarify: I don't object to the patch because the code doesn't
actually end up *depending* on the high bits anyway, and does
word-sized compares etc. And the instruction size and speed things I
don't doubt. So it's just the commit message I wanted to check wrt
that whole "always overwrites all of %ecx". Because older CPU's didn't
necessarily (things like partial register writes are much less of an
issue when you're in-order and stupid ;)
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