[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191024174044.GJ4114@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 19:40:44 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [patch V2 08/17] x86/entry: Move syscall irq tracing to C code
On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 09:24:13AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 2:30 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 5:31 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > Interrupt state tracing can be safely done in C code. The few stack
> > > operations in assembly do not need to be covered.
> > >
> > > Remove the now pointless indirection via .Lsyscall_32_done and jump to
> > > swapgs_restore_regs_and_return_to_usermode directly.
> >
> > This doesn't look right.
>
> Well, I feel a bit silly. I read this:
>
> >
> > > #define SYSCALL_EXIT_WORK_FLAGS \
> > > @@ -279,6 +282,9 @@ static void syscall_slow_exit_work(struc
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> and I applied the diff in my head to the wrong function, and I didn't
> notice that it didn't really apply there. Oddly, gitweb gets this
I had the same when reviewing these patches; I was almost going to ask
tglx about it on IRC when the penny dropped.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists