Re: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] i387: support lazy restore of FPU state

[Jongman Heo <jongman.heo@samsung.com>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=euc-kr, Size: 1380 bytes --]


> Sender : Linus Torvalds<torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> Date : 2012-02-21 11:18 (GMT+09:00)
> Title : Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] i387: support lazy restore of FPU state
> 
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> >
> > The attached trivial patch fixes it, I bet.
> 
> Actually, it doesn't fix it on x86-32, because we actually have an
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64 around the "current_task" definition due to
> pointless differences in how we do that on x86-64 and x86-32.
> 
> So much for the "common" part of "arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c"
> 
> > Although I do wonder if we should just make kernel_fpu_begin() be a
> > real function instead of inlining it. I'm not sure it makes sense to
> > inline that thing, and it might be better to export that one instead.
> 
> I do think that would be better in the long run, but for now here's an
> updated "trivial" patch to fix it.
> 
> I want the fpu_owner_task to be declared next to the cache-hot
> task-switching stuff, and since they are different on 32-bit and
> 64-bit (for no really good reason), that gets duplicated too. Sad.
> 
>                         Linus
> 
>                       Linus

Yeah, this patch fixes my x86-32 build.

Thanks,
Jongman Heo.ÿôèº{.nÇ+‰·Ÿ®‰­†+%ŠËÿ±éݶ\x17¥Šwÿº{.nÇ+‰·¥Š{±þG«éÿŠ{ayº\x1dʇڙë,j\a­¢f£¢·hšïêÿ‘êçz_è®\x03(­éšŽŠÝ¢j"ú\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿ¾\a«þG«éÿ¢¸?™¨è­Ú&£ø§~á¶iO•æ¬z·švØ^\x14\x04\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿÃ\fÿ¶ìÿ¢¸?–I¥