From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/11] x86/fpu: prepare copy_fpstate_to_sigframe for
 TIF_LOAD_FPU
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 17:24:31 +0200
Message-ID: <20181015152431.GD11434@zn.tnic>
References: <20181004140547.13014-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
 <20181004140547.13014-11-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
 <ef6012c0-52b9-14bb-c581-97627fdd5cb5@linux.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ef6012c0-52b9-14bb-c581-97627fdd5cb5@linux.intel.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 12:40:19PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > +	__fpregs_changes_end();
> 
> Do we really need the __fpregs_changes_*() abstraction for this single
> call site?

Yap, I'm staring at those in patch 2, there's no documentation there what
they're supposed to do, only the commit message of patch 11 says:

"The __fpregs_changes_{begin|end}() section ensures that the register
remain unchanged. Otherwise a context switch or a BH could save the
registers to its FPU context and processor's FPU register would remain
random."

So I'd say we should drop that abstraction, use preempt_* and put that
text above the single usage site.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.