From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751919AbbCOQvo (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sun, 15 Mar 2015 12:51:44 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:56001 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751297AbbCOQvl (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 15 Mar 2015 12:51:41 -0400
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 17:49:48 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Pekka Riikonen <priikone@iki.fi>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Suresh Siddha <sbsiddha@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
        Quentin Casasnovas <quentin.casasnovas@oracle.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: [PATCH RFC 0/2] x86/fpu: avoid "xstate_fault" in
	xsave_user/xrestore_user
Message-ID: <20150315164948.GA28149@redhat.com>
References: <54F74F59.5070107@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <54F74F59.5070107@intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hello.

Another a bit off-topic change, but I'd like to finish the discussion
with Quentin.

And almost cosmetic. But I added the RFC tag to make it clear that this
needs a review from someone who understands gcc-asm better. In particular
I am worried if that dummy "=m" (*buf) is actually correct.


And I agree with Quentin, user_insn/check_insn can be improved to allow
clobbers, more flexible "output", etc. But imo they already can make this
code look a bit better, and "xstate_fault" must die eventually.

Quentin, could you review? I can't find your last email about this change,
and I can't recall if you agree or not.

Oleg.