Message-Id: <44E039B0.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 08:52:00 +0200
From: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@novell.com>
To: "Stas Sergeev" <stsp@aknet.ru>
Cc: "Chuck Ebbert" <76306.1226@compuserve.com>, "Andi Kleen" <ak@suse.de>,
       <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] i386: annotate the rest of entry.s::nmi
References: <200608100101_MC3-1-C796-F8CA@compuserve.com>
 <44DB0927.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> <44DCC283.7030709@aknet.ru>
In-Reply-To: <44DCC283.7030709@aknet.ru>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 769
Lines: 19

>> even more, as I'm now looking at it, this code seems
>> outright wrong in using iret since that unmasks NMIs - Stas, is
>> your pending adjustment to the 16-bit stack handling going to
>> overcome this?)
>No, it leaves the NMI path almost untouched.
>But what exactly problem do you see with this iret?
>If it unmasks NMI, then it does so for reason, which
>is a return from an NMI handler. What exactly is wrong
>with it?

Oh, yes, you're right, I didn't pay attention to the second do_nmi
call in that path.

Sorry, Jan
-
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/