From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Ayush Jain <Ayush.Jain3@amd.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/fpu: Fix irq_fpu_usable() to return false during CPU onlining
Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 17:39:27 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87y0uqq8gg.ffs@tglx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aCxMXqQmHGU06l-O@gmail.com>
On Tue, May 20 2025 at 11:33, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>> Or we could use DEFINE_PER_CPU() = true in patch 1, then revert that
>> in patch 2 and replace it with the line in fpu__init_cpu(). But
>> again I think the split would be more likely to create problems than
>> solve them.
>
> Well, my request would be for the first patch to simply mimic current
> (and buggy) behavior as much as reasonably possible (obviously the
> effects of BSS zeroing shouldn't be mimiced 100%) - and the second
> patch to fix the initialization-ordering bug.
So the first patch is then incomprehensible buggy and needs a trivial
one-liner to fix up, right?
TBH, that's just bonkers. Eric's patch is trivial enough as is and easy
to review. Artifical patch splitting with buggy intermediate state makes
only sense, when the overall changes are massive and hard to
review. That's absolutely not the case here.
Thanks,
tglx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-05-21 15:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-05-18 19:32 [PATCH] x86/fpu: Fix irq_fpu_usable() to return false during CPU onlining Eric Biggers
2025-05-19 4:18 ` Jain, Ayush
2025-05-19 8:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2025-05-19 8:32 ` Ingo Molnar
2025-05-19 17:04 ` Eric Biggers
2025-05-20 9:33 ` Ingo Molnar
2025-05-21 15:39 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2025-05-24 2:55 ` Eric Biggers
2025-05-21 15:39 ` Thomas Gleixner
2025-05-26 2:56 ` Herbert Xu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87y0uqq8gg.ffs@tglx \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=Ayush.Jain3@amd.com \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=ebiggers@kernel.org \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox