Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757835AbXHUHa1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Aug 2007 03:30:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751002AbXHUHaO (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Aug 2007 03:30:14 -0400 Received: from fk-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.128.187]:64694 "EHLO fk-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750759AbXHUHaM (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Aug 2007 03:30:12 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=muBDaQxmgLtPWwt14DydY4to5ppsJeFn/8uiNJ0sRDbbSVVm56K26YuHlu+kuk0dM/ULrVcVbTgMHXwr4iaLtx6O8OBGNFA7La8DUZ1eCzyN6khOydYkaLFwLCabyrCIBQkbxexaHl4G+BpKlAs4KmGiSjpOMhV9pnNCcat0CEE= Message-ID: <5d6222a80708210030w26294b0dq4bd1977fcb3bc6f4@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 04:30:10 -0300 From: "Glauber de Oliveira Costa" To: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" Subject: Re: [PATCH] [5/12] x86_64: Make patching more robust, fix paravirt issue Cc: "Chris Wright" , "Rusty Russell" , "Andi Kleen" , patches@x86-64.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Linus Torvalds" , "Steven Rostedt" In-Reply-To: <46C9317C.2080509@goop.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070809241.425881000@suse.de> <20070809124132.C794A14F3B@wotan.suse.de> <46C637B7.30200@goop.org> <1187574628.19435.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070820020732.GA3672@sequoia.sous-sol.org> <46C9317C.2080509@goop.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1489 Lines: 40 On 8/20/07, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Chris Wright wrote: > > That did get backed out (at least the part that broke paravirt patching) > > in 602033ed5907a59ce86f709082a35be047743a86. Linus' tree should be > > working fine right now with d34fda4a84c18402640a1a2342d6e6d9829e6db7 > > committed, and can be further refined with the patch below that's just > > waiting on some further testing. > > > > I don't think this is necessary. It isn't worth complicating the > interface to avoid the memcpy. > > J Damn, I can't believe I've just lost a night tracking the issue, without seeing the discussion here ;-) I came out to this very same conclusion, and was about to send a patch that fixes it, by doing a memcpy before starting the instruction replacement. (I wouldn't say anything, as this is solved, but my night have to get some value, after all! ;-) So I'm with Jeremy. We don't lose too much by putting a memcpy there, this code is not exactly critical. It also seems cleaner, and less error prone. I have a patch ready here, but I think by this time, you guys have too ;-) -- Glauber de Oliveira Costa. "Free as in Freedom" http://glommer.net "The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act." - 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/