Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751006AbWITKWK (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Sep 2006 06:22:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751008AbWITKWJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Sep 2006 06:22:09 -0400 Received: from outpipe-village-512-1.bc.nu ([81.2.110.250]:37251 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751005AbWITKWI (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Sep 2006 06:22:08 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers From: Alan Cox To: karim@opersys.com Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers , Martin Bligh , prasanna@in.ibm.com, Andrew Morton , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Ingo Molnar , Paul Mundt , linux-kernel , Jes Sorensen , Tom Zanussi , Richard J Moore , Michel Dagenais , Christoph Hellwig , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Thomas Gleixner , William Cohen , ltt-dev@shafik.org, systemtap@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <451090E7.603@opersys.com> References: <20060918234502.GA197@Krystal> <20060919081124.GA30394@elte.hu> <451008AC.6030006@google.com> <20060919154612.GU3951@redhat.com> <4510151B.5070304@google.com> <20060919093935.4ddcefc3.akpm@osdl.org> <45101DBA.7000901@google.com> <20060919063821.GB23836@in.ibm.com> <45102641.7000101@google.com> <20060919175405.GC26339@Krystal> <1158710925.32598.120.camel@localhost.localdomain> <451090E7.603@opersys.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:44:29 +0100 Message-Id: <1158749069.7705.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.2 (2.6.2-1.fc5.5) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1253 Lines: 31 Ar Maw, 2006-09-19 am 20:52 -0400, ysgrifennodd Karim Yaghmour: > a) the errata & a possible thread having an IP leading back within (not > at the start of) the range to be replaced. > b) the errata & replacing single instruction with single instruction of > same size. Intel don't distinguish. Richard's reply later in the thread answers a lot more including what Intels architecture team said about int3 being a specific safe case for soem reason > I was vaguely aware of the issue on x86. Do you know if this applies the > same on other achitectures? I wouldn't know. > Also, this is SMP-only, right? (Not that single UP matters for desktop > anymore, but just checking.) There are some uniprocessor errata but I cannot see how you could patch code, somehow take an interrupt (or return from one) without executing a serializing instruction, so I likewise think its SMP only. > Any pointers to the errata? developer.intel.com 'specification update' documents (which are always good reading). - 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/