[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160309171938.GA15503@test-lenovo>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 09:19:39 -0800
From: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Sai Praneeth Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@...el.com>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Leonid Shatz <leonid.shatz@...ellosystems.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/fpu: Revert earlier patch of Disable AVX when
eagerfpu is off
On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 01:46:26PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com> wrote:
>
> > AVX was mistakenly believed to be dependent on eagerfpu switch.
> > This turns out to be false. The earlier patch should be reverted.
> >
> > Original patch:
> > http://git.kernel.org/tip/394db20ca240741a08d472173db13d6f6a6e5a28
>
> So the original patch had a whole host of explanations of why that change is
> correct. This revert should explain where that argumentation was wrong.
I will send out another version that includes more details.
Thanks,
Yu-cheng
Powered by blists - more mailing lists