[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180702121859.GL2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 14:18:59 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] x86/split_lock: Align x86_capability to unsigned
long to avoid split locked access
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 01:38:44PM -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> include/linux/efi.h because set_bit() sets bits in efi.flags:
> - unsigned long flags;
> + unsigned long flags __aligned(unsigned long);
> } efi;
Help me out here; how is the above change not a complete no-op?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists