Re: [PATCH v5] eal_common_cpuflags: Fix %rbx corruption, and simplify the code

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

2014-04-02 07:16, Neil Horman:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 01:51:04PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 03/25/2014 12:52 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> > > Neil Horman reported that on x86-64 the upper half of %rbx would get
> > > clobbered when the code was compiled PIC or PIE, because the
> > > i386-specific code to preserve %ebx was incorrectly compiled.
> > > 
> > > However, the code is really way more complex than it needs to be.  For
> > > one thing, the CPUID instruction only needs %eax (leaf) and %ecx
> > > (subleaf) as parameters, and since we are testing for bits, we might
> > > as well list the bits explicitly.  Furthermore, we can use an array
> > > rather than doing a switch statement inside a structure.
> > > 
> > > Reported-by: Neil Horman <nhorman-2XuSBdqkA4R54TAoqtyWWQ@public.gmane.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Neil Horman <nhorman-2XuSBdqkA4R54TAoqtyWWQ@public.gmane.org>
> > 
> > Looks good to me.
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org>
> > 
> > 	-hpa
> 
> Bump, did this get lost somewhere?  Its been over a week and I don't see it
> in the tree

No, it's not lost. But this patch is not trivial and there were 5 versions 
with acknowledgements in the middle. So I think it was not a bad idea to wait 
few days in order to be sure this version is OK :)

-- 
Thomas