Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757301AbZLIHgp (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Dec 2009 02:36:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752016AbZLIHgn (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Dec 2009 02:36:43 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:59598 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751175AbZLIHgm (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Dec 2009 02:36:42 -0500 Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 08:36:32 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Linus Torvalds , Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/paravirt for v2.6.33 Message-ID: <20091209073632.GD8187@elte.hu> References: <20091203210913.GA24351@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: 0.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=0.0 required=5.9 tests=none autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 _SUMMARY_ Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1539 Lines: 43 * Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, 3 Dec 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > Please pull the latest x86-paravirt-for-linus git tree from: > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/linux-2.6-tip.git x86-paravirt-for-linus > > I _really_ don't like this: > > > -long sys_iopl(struct pt_regs *regs) > > +asmlinkage long sys_iopl(unsigned int level) > > { > > - unsigned int level = regs->bx; > > struct thread_struct *t = ¤t->thread; > > + struct pt_regs *regs = task_pt_regs(current); > > I do _not_ want to add any more task_pt_regs() crap, please. > > Why? It's wrong for at least vm86 mode (and from kernel system calls). > Maybe we can't get into system calls from vm86 mode, and the kernel > hopefully doesn't do those things anyway, but the point is, you chose > the wrong way to go. > > The old version that actually passed the stack frame was better. Why > pick the inferior version? Yeah, agreed. I missed that detail. Jeremy, mind sending a patch that updates this code to use the less obfuscated 32-bit version, not the 64-bit version? (a delta patch against tip:master would be nice, as there's a fair amount of testing in the unification change itself already, which we dont want to discard.) Thanks, Ingo -- 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/