[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6C089922-C70D-4FF3-9B80-1F21FA80B175@vmware.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 09:41:15 +0000
From: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] x86/cpu_entry_area: move part of it back to fixmap
at 12:37 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 09:59:48PM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> This patch proposes to do something different: break
>> it into two. One part holds code+data that is needed for the entry
>> (trampoline code, entry stack and TSS), which is mapped in the fixmap.
>
>> The other part holds the exception_stacks, debug store and buffers, and
>> is left in its current (new) position.
>
>> The name
>> "cpu_entry_area_aux" for the second area is awful (ideas are welcomed),
>
> How about: cpu_data_area ? Since none of that is required for the entry,
> that should also not be part of its name.
I’m fine with your name. But I want to know whether the solution in general
is acceptable.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists