From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Hugh Dickens <hugh@veritas.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/paravirt for v2.6.33
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:19:43 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B1FEA3F.7090300@goop.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091209073632.GD8187@elte.hu>
On 12/08/09 23:36, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> The old version that actually passed the stack frame was better. Why
>> pick the inferior version?
>>
> Yeah, agreed. I missed that detail.
>
Which detail is that? The whole patch? ;)
> Jeremy, mind sending a patch that updates this code to use the less
> obfuscated 32-bit version, not the 64-bit version? (a delta patch
> against tip:master would be nice, as there's a fair amount of testing in
> the unification change itself already, which we dont want to discard.)
>
Sure.
But I'm not sure I understand the objection to task_pt_regs(); is it
considered deprecated? This patch received quite a lot of discussion
with no mention of it. Should we consider all its uses as suspect?
Would it be better to have something similar which just returns a
pointer to the saved [re]flags, since that's all we care about? That
should be easier to make robust against
J
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-12-09 18:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-03 21:09 [GIT PULL] x86/paravirt for v2.6.33 Ingo Molnar
2009-12-08 21:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-12-09 7:36 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-12-09 18:19 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge [this message]
2009-12-09 18:31 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-12-09 18:47 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-12-09 18:54 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-12-09 19:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-12-09 19:25 ` Brian Gerst
2009-12-09 19:35 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-12-09 19:32 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-12-09 20:05 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-12-09 18:49 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-12-09 18:18 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-12-09 21:58 ` Linus Torvalds
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-12-09 18:29 H. Peter Anvin
2009-12-09 18:38 ` Linus Torvalds
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=4B1FEA3F.7090300@goop.org \
--to=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=hugh@veritas.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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