On Tue, 2013-11-19 at 10:51 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote: > > Am 19.11.2013 um 00:49 schrieb Scott Wood <scottwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 16:09 -0500, Alexander Graf wrote: > >> On 18.11.2013, at 03:34, “tiejun.chen” <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >>> On 10/23/2013 09:26 AM, Tiejun Chen wrote: > >>>> We enter with interrupts disabled in hardware, but we need to > >>>> call RECONCILE_IRQ_STATE anyway to ensure that the software state > >>>> is kept in sync instead of calling hard_irq_disable() directly. > >> > >> Why didn't this happen before? What is this patch fixing? > > > > It's cleanup, not a fix. It makes things more consistent with other > > 64-bit kernel entry code. > > Could we please note this in the comit message so that whoever stumbles over the patch later knows that this is effectively a no-op (and just prepones the lazy sync)? > > Also, I'm still wary of lazy breakage in the pr code path, but I guess since it's completely untested today already it's ok to ignore. PR doesn't support 64-bit at all (e.g. it's all stw/lwz rather than some word-size abstraction). In the unlikely event that lazy EE is ever extended to 32-bit, then fixing up booke_interrupts.S would be just one part of the task of updating all the 32-bit asm (e.g. you'll find RECONCILE_IRQ_STATE in entry_64.S but not entry_32.S). -Scott -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
