From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751763AbbCSGdS (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Mar 2015 02:33:18 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f182.google.com ([209.85.212.182]:37310 "EHLO mail-wi0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750729AbbCSGdR (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Mar 2015 02:33:17 -0400 Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 07:33:12 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Brad Spengler , Denys Vlasenko , Linus Torvalds , "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] user_mode_vm removal and associated cleanups Message-ID: <20150319063312.GA7312@gmail.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Andy Lutomirski wrote: > Hi all- > > The user_mode vs user_mode_vm distinction scares me. Let's fix it. > This series adds user_mode_ignore_vm86, makes user_mode reliable, > and removes user_mode_vm. It also tidies up a couple warts I found > along the way. > > This survives basic testing, but I haven't tried that hard to test it. > > Thoughts? > > Ingo, this may conflict a bit with the do_debug and do_bounds fixes. I like it, in fact I'd suggest we remove user_mode_ignore_vm86() altogether, as it's such a marginal optimization, it only affects x86-32 kernels, and because we keep getting this wrong. Keep a single, simple user_mode() definition. Thanks, Ingo