Message-ID: <1351865489.4004.137.camel@gandalf.local.home>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [PATCH] x86: Don't clobber top of pt_regs in nested NMI
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: sqazi@google.com, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, hpa@linux.intel.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 10:11:29 -0400
In-Reply-To: <5093E22302000078000A611A@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
References: <20121002002919.27236.14388.stgit@dungbeetle.mtv.corp.google.com>
	 <1351731872.4004.112.camel@gandalf.local.home>
	 <5092D31C020000780008EB6B@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	 <1351864310.4004.130.camel@gandalf.local.home>
	 <1351864429.4004.131.camel@gandalf.local.home>
	 <5093E22302000078000A611A@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 749
Lines: 28

On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 14:09 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:

> >>  	subq $(5*8), %rsp
> >> +	CFI_ADJUST_CFA_OFFSET 5*8
> >>  
> >>  	CFI_DEF_CFA_OFFSET SS+8-RIP
> >>  end_repeat_nmi:
> >> 
> > 
> > Is that second one even needed? Or will the CFI_DEF_CFA_OFFSET SS+8-RIP
> > fix it?
> 
> Yes it will (as long as no intervening instructions get added; that's
> to say that I'd recommend removing the blank line to make clear
> that instruction and annotation belong together).

OK, will do.

Thanks!

-- Steve


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