[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <17e097f5-f92c-bd7e-fb1d-ee08c4169dbe@citrix.com>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 21:52:30 +0100
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, tglx@...utronix.de,
luto@...capital.net
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...ux.alibaba.com>,
sean.j.christopherson@...el.com, daniel.thompson@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/entry: Introduce local_db_{save,restore}()
On 28/05/2020 21:19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/debugreg.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/debugreg.h
> @@ -113,6 +113,31 @@ static inline void debug_stack_usage_inc
> static inline void debug_stack_usage_dec(void) { }
> #endif /* X86_64 */
>
> +static __always_inline void local_db_save(unsigned long *dr7)
> +{
> + get_debugreg(*dr7, 7);
> + if (*dr7)
> + set_debugreg(0, 7);
%dr7 has an architecturally stuck bit in it.
You want *dr7 != 0x400 to avoid writing 0 unconditionally.
Also, API wise, wouldn't it be nicer to write "dr7 = local_db_save()"
rather than having a void function returning a single long via pointer?
~Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists