[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wh5sTSF0X7qp80Ls5QZ2AgAm3yk3Ow9qOuNKB6O_zGVKA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 16:21:46 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, valentin.schneider@....com,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/x86: Save [ER]FLAGS on context switch
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 3:34 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> Now, EFLAGS bit 1 is supposedly always 1, but it really doesn't seem to
> matter for POPF.
Correct, it's "read as 1", you can try to write it and it doesn't matter.
> I went through the other flags, and aside from VIP/VIF (I've no clue),
> they looks like 0 should be just fine.
So 0 is a perfectly valid initializer in the sense that it _works_, I
just want it to be something that was thought about, not just a random
"initialize to zero" without thinking.
Even just a comment about it would be fine. But it might also be good
to show that it's an explicit eflags value and just use
X86_EFLAGS_FIXED as the initializer.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists