Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86@kernel.org,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/15] x86/tlb: Unexport per-CPU tlbstate
In-Reply-To: <20200420092045.GC24518@infradead.org>
References: <20200419203137.214111265@linutronix.de> <20200420092045.GC24518@infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 20 Apr 2020 19:27:06 +0200
Message-ID: <87sggyax05.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> writes:
> Just looking over some exports at the end of the series (and thus
> ignoring bisection issues):
>
>  - Is there any good reason to keep __flush_tlb_all inline vs moving it
>    out of line and kill the flush_tlb_local and flush_tlb_global exports.
>    Also there is just a single modular users in SVM, I wonder if there is
>    any way to get rid of that one as well.

I'll have a look again.

> Also I think cpu_tlbstate itself could be marked static in tlb.c with
> a few more changes, I wonder if would be worth it?

Unfortunately it can't. We need it in the low level entry code due to
PTI and solving that would be a messy surgery.

Thanks,

        tglx