[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whNKuuhS9DTYx_ta_yDt4x2mLjtAgWgLE=gXEQrvz_vNg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 09:54:26 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, mhiramat@...nel.org,
jbaron@...mai.com, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
David.Laight@...lab.com, bp@...en8.de, julia@...com,
jeyu@...nel.org, Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] x86/static_call: Add inline static call
implementation for x86-64
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 9:50 AM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> - corrupt random registers because we "know" they aren't in use
Just to clarify: I think that's a completely unacceptable model.
We already have lots of special calling conventions, including ones
that do not have any call-clobbered registers at all, because we have
special magic calls in inline asm.
Some of those might be prime material for doing static calls (ie PV-op
stuff, where the native model does *not* change any registers).
So no. Don't do ugly hacks like that.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists