Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934888AbXHLNBq (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Aug 2007 09:01:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1765418AbXHLNBi (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Aug 2007 09:01:38 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:60515 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1763035AbXHLNBi (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Aug 2007 09:01:38 -0400 To: Petr Vandrovec Cc: discuss@x86-64.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Please remove ab144f5ec64c42218a555ec1dbde6b60cf2982d6 was Re: [discuss] [PATCH] Fix triplefault on x86-64 bootup References: <20070812081252.GA23309@vana.vc.cvut.cz> <200708121209.40995.ak@suse.de> <46BEE427.3020904@vandrovec.name> From: Andi Kleen Date: 12 Aug 2007 15:55:50 +0200 In-Reply-To: <46BEE427.3020904@vandrovec.name> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1507 Lines: 28 Petr Vandrovec writes: > Andi Kleen wrote: > > On Sunday 12 August 2007 10:12, Petr Vandrovec wrote: > >> Hello, > >> after I upgraded kernel on my box to current git, only thing it did > >> was rebooting in a loop. After some digging I found that it is silly > >> to apply alternative to memcpy by using that every same memcpy... > >> Sorry if it is known bug, I do not see it reported in my LKML mailbox... > > Ok Linus already applied your patch. Even though it's a really bad > > fragile hack, not better than the old bug. > > Petr are you double sure you really tested with > > ab144f5ec64c42218a555ec1dbde6b60cf2982d6 > > already applied? I bet not -- it is the symptom exactly fixed by this patch > > I'm quite sure that this patch is in my tree, as I have that "u8 > *instr = a->instr;" in apply_alternatives, and it seems that this one > was added by checkin you mention... My tree was synced up to: Can you double check? I have a hard time believing it. > It does not actually change two bytes - it changes two bytes now > because alternative is two bytes long - it makes no sense to replace > whole function with NOPs - it is necessary when you fall through that It saves the jump. Admittedly not a big advantage. -Andi - 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/