> On Jan 28, 2018, at 1:29 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > * 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> I have a very similar but not quite identical version I'll send out shortly. The difference is that I fixed the silly prologue. > > Thanks, > > Ingo
