Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:19:43 -0800 | From | Jeremy Fitzhardinge <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] x86/paravirt for v2.6.33 |
| |
On 12/08/09 23:36, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> The old version that actually passed the stack frame was better. Why >> pick the inferior version? >> > Yeah, agreed. I missed that detail. >
Which detail is that? The whole patch? ;)
> 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.) >
Sure.
But I'm not sure I understand the objection to task_pt_regs(); is it considered deprecated? This patch received quite a lot of discussion with no mention of it. Should we consider all its uses as suspect?
Would it be better to have something similar which just returns a pointer to the saved [re]flags, since that's all we care about? That should be easier to make robust against
J
| |