[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whkQwEJxg9XBO9nBk=aCade8Obk+EvVjzTRT1R+nq3eYw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2020 11:13:28 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michael Matz <matz@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86 cleanups for v5.7
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 11:04 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
> My only worry is that if we had that support, we would have to keep two
> versions of the facilities which use it - one with asm goto with outputs
> and one without.
That's why it took three years for me to merge the "unsafe_put_user()"
stuff. I only did it once other issues had made PeterZ and people
decide that "asm goto is a required feature" for some of the other
stuff (static branches, whatever).
Because when it comes to small details like "we can remove a test and
a branch", it generally isn't worth the code complexity to have two
different copies. Particularly with how messy uaccess.h was.
The reason I did the additional uaccess.h cleanups was exactly because
I think I can have a CONFIG_ASM_GOTO_OUTPUTS thing, and minimize the
differences the same way we minimize them with CC_SET/CC_OUT doe the
__GCC_ASM_FLAG_OUTPUTS__ compiler support flag.
I haven't actually sat down to _do_ it, though. I spent several hours
on the cleanups as a break from pulling stuff during the merge window,
but this _is_ my busy time..
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists