|
From: H. P. A. <hp...@zy...> - 2013-02-18 23:51:33
|
On 02/18/2013 03:45 PM, Seiji Aguchi wrote: >>> Not-yet-signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <ro...@go...> >>> >>> ... so I was holding off on doing anything with it. >> >> Heh, and I was waiting for comments from you before doing anything further with it ;-) >> >> Email review deadlock! > > So, how do you plan to push ahead with this patch? > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/1/532 > > <snip> > I think I got all the cases, as NMIs causes the store/restore functions to be re-entrent without any locks. > <snip> > > Steven, > if you think you got all the cases, you can do more testing. > What is your concern? > > I hope this patch will be included in 3.9. > What about the following: > The base address of the IDT doesn't generally change... the one > exception is when we do the funny NMI workaround. > > For that reason, I would be happier if we just restored the standard > value instead of saving/restoring stuff. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. |