[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFyf9UAhQp48YCtqNnvSs_tC3W51uCb00nMND7ZG8KQexA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 14:35:46 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Sara Sharon <sara.sharon@...el.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: Petition Intel/AMD to add POPF_IF insn
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> Of course, if somebody uses native_restore_fl() to actually *disable*
> interrupts (when they weren't already disabled), then this untested
> patch will just not work. But why would you do somethign so stupid?
> Famous last words...
Looking around, the vsmp code actually uses "native_restore_fl()" to
not just set the interrupt flag, but AC as well.
And the PV spinlock case has that "push;popf" sequence encoded in an alternate.
So that trivial patch may (or may not - still not tested) work for
some quick testing, but needs more effort for any *real* use.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists