[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191129170806.f6gvbpsom74njxpb@linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 18:08:06 +0100
From: 'Sebastian Andrzej Siewior' <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc: Barret Rhoden <brho@...gle.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Josh Bleecher Snyder <josharian@...il.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "ian@...s.com" <ian@...s.com>,
Austin Clements <austin@...gle.com>,
David Chase <drchase@...ang.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/fpu: Don't cache access to fpu_fpregs_owner_ctx
On 2019-11-29 16:57:42 [+0000], David Laight wrote:
> Should both fpregs_lock() and fpregs_unlock() contain a barrier() (or "memory" clobber)
> do stop the compiler moving anything across them?
They already do.
> David
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists