[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1528403461.5265.36.camel@2b52.sc.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2018 13:31:01 -0700
From: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
"Shanbhogue, Vedvyas" <vedvyas.shanbhogue@...el.com>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
mike.kravetz@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] x86/cet: Introduce WRUSS instruction
On Thu, 2018-06-07 at 20:41 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 09:40:02AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > Peterz, isn't there some fancy better way we're supposed to handle the
> > error return these days?
>
> Don't think so. I played with a few things but that never really went
> anywhere.
>
> Also, both asm things look suspicously similar, it might make sense to
> share. Also, maybe do the instruction .byte sequence in a #define INSN
> or something.
I will fix that.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists