* Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Quoting Linus: > > "Honestly, I'd rather get rid of the fast-path entirely. Compared to > all the PTI mess, it's not even noticeable. > > And if we ever get CPU's that have this all fixed, we can re-visit > introducing the fastpath. But this is all very messy and it doesn't > seem worth it right now. > > If we get rid of the fastpath, we can lay out the slow path slightly > better, and get rid of some of those jump-overs. And we'd get rid of > the ptregs hooks entirely. > > So we can try to make the "slow" path better while at it, but I > really don't think it matters much now in the post-PTI era. Sadly." Please fix the title to have the proper prefix and to reference the function that is actually modified by the patch, i.e. something like: s/ x86: remove the syscall_64 fast-path / x86/entry/64: Remove the entry_SYSCALL_64() fast-path With the title fixed: Reviewed-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks, Ingo
