[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <FF79EFCF-5D2C-4F3D-AF94-4BC2F7EED255@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 00:06:48 +0000
From: "Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"Yu, Yu-cheng" <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Kan Liang" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
"Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>,
"Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V3 00/66] x86/fpu: Spring cleaning and PKRU sanitizing
On Jun 22, 2021, at 13:02, Bae, Chang Seok <chang.seok.bae@...el.com> wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2021, at 15:22, Bae, Chang Seok <chang.seok.bae@...el.com> wrote:
>> I tried to apply AMX patches on top of this. The test looks to be okay by far.
>> I will also give an update here if I find anything.
>
> This looks to be vague about the test. I took cases shown in AMX v5 like this:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210523193259.26200-24-chang.seok.bae@intel.com/
> It validates AMX state with context switches, signal delivery/return, and
> context injection via ptrace.
Also, just for the record, as the next AMX version is imminent:
Lots of AMX-related code are mostly function name changes and I had to
readjust my assumption. (Maybe this is not conclusive yet as still digesting
the code.) But I think the rebase went well with the test results, and this
change improves the mainline in many ways that affect adjusting AMX code in
the right way.
Thanks,
Chang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists