Re: [GIT PULL] x86/paravirt for v2.6.33

From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Date: Wed Dec 09 2009 - 13:19:55 EST


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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/