[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <SA1PR11MB673454F82DEBD8A1C7009C79A8CE9@SA1PR11MB6734.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 17:48:01 +0000
From: "Li, Xin3" <xin3.li@...el.com>
To: Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@...weeb.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"andrew.cooper3@...rix.com" <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Lutomirski, Andy" <luto@...nel.org>,
x86 Mailing List <x86@...nel.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Linux Kselftest Mailing List
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH v5 0/2] sysret_rip update for the Intel FRED
architecture
> > > Would it be better to get this patch set merged first?
> > >
> > > Otherwise surely I will include it in the FRED patch set.
> >
> > If the maintainers are ok with it, it would be better to merge it
> > sooner: once we have agreed on the semantics, which I believe we have,
> > we should be testing those semantics and nothing else.
>
> OK, let's keep this patchset separated from the FRED support patchset.
Thanks!
This patch set first makes the R11/RCX semantics clearer, and it BTW fixes
FRED tests.
To me it's more of an improvement to the existing code.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists