[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrXQLbmCw=8jZR6UbKvCB8ERg+75RWJgBBr5aFGbtVZTDA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 10:46:26 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch V4 part 1 14/36] x86/entry: Get rid of ist_begin/end_non_atomic()
On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 7:13 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> This is completely overengineered and definitely not an interface which
> should be made available to anything else than this particular MCE case.
Sorry for the overengineering. :)
--Andy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists