[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190507114537.48a863fa@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2019 11:45:37 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Nicolai Stange <nstange@...e.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] x86: Allow breakpoints to emulate call
functions
On Tue, 7 May 2019 08:31:14 -0700
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> The reality is that changing something fundamental like the kernel
> stack at this point for an architecture that will not change in the
> future is silly.
x86_32 will no longer have updates, but will x86_64? And we will
constantly be adding more work around hacks to handle the difference of
the pt_regs in the future. I see Peter's patch easing that future pain.
>
> The reality is that Peter's patch is much bigger than mine, because it
> needed a lot of other changes *because* it did that change.
It was much bigger because it removed a lot of the work around hacks.
But you are the "benevolent dictator", and I don't see me changing your
mind.
I'll go and implement it the way you like.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists