[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200429092735.GA16407@zn.tnic>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 11:27:35 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/10] x86/fpu/xstate: Define new functions for
clearing fpregs and xstates
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 09:43:02AM -0700, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> @@ -318,18 +313,40 @@ static inline void copy_init_fpstate_to_fpregs(void)
> * Called by sys_execve(), by the signal handler code and by various
> * error paths.
> */
> -void fpu__clear(struct fpu *fpu)
> +static void fpu__clear(struct fpu *fpu, int clear_user_only)
I said:
"fpu__clear(struct fpu *fpu, bool user_only)"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
you made it
..., int clear_user_only)
Why?
If you agree with the review comment, then please do it as suggested. If
you don't, then say why you don't.
Why would you do something in-between?
> {
> - WARN_ON_FPU(fpu != ¤t->thread.fpu); /* Almost certainly an anomaly */
Why are you moving this into the callers when *both* do it?
> + if (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_FPU)) {
Flip this logic:
if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_FPU)) {
fpu__drop(fpu);
fpu__initialize(fpu);
return;
}
fpregs_lock();
...
to save an indentation level and make the important case more readable
and locking more prominent.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists