[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <517884E1.5060404@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:20:33 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
CC: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: make DR*_RESERVED unsigned long
On 04/24/2013 04:31 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>>
>> Now, DR6 is a bit special in that a bunch of the reserved bits are
>> hardwired to 1, not 0; I don't know offhand if that is true for bits
>> [63:32].
>
> Hmm, good point, could it be a problem given that we clear the
> reserved dr6 bits on do_trap() and write that 'cleaned up" value back
> to "tsk->thread.debugreg6"? Probably not if those hardwired reserved
> bits are set to "1" on dr6 physical write whether those bits are
> cleared or not in their storage in thread struct before resuming the
> task?
>
OK, the SDM states that DR6[63:32] are reserved and must be written as
zero (not one).
So the quiescent 64-bit value of DR6 is 0x0000_0000_FFFF_0FF0.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists