On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I guess as a workaround it is fine, as long as we don't lose sight of
> trying to eventually do a better job.
Oh, and when it comes to the actual gcc bug - do you have any reason
to believe that it's somehow triggered more easily by something
particular in the arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c code?
IOW, why does this problem not hit the x86 spinlocks that also use
volatile pointers to aggregate types? Or does it?
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
