On Sun, Oct 18 2020 at 22:37, Ira Weiny wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 02:55:21PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Subject: x86/entry: Move nmi entry/exit into common code
>> From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 10:09:56 +0200
>>
>> Add blurb here.
>
> How about:
>
> To prepare for saving PKRS values across NMI's we lift the
> idtentry_[enter|exit]_nmi() to the common code. Rename them to
> irqentry_nmi_[enter|exit]() to reflect the new generic nature and store the
> state in the same irqentry_state_t structure as the other irqentry_*()
> functions. Finally, differentiate the state being stored between the NMI and
> IRQ path by adding 'lockdep' to irqentry_state_t.
No. This has absolutely nothing to do with PKRS. It's a cleanup valuable
by itself and that's how it should have been done right away.
So the proper changelog is:
Lockdep state handling on NMI enter and exit is nothing specific to
X86. It's not any different on other architectures. Also the extra
state type is not necessary, irqentry_state_t can carry the necessary
information as well.
Move it to common code and extend irqentry_state_t to carry lockdep
state.
>> --- a/include/linux/entry-common.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/entry-common.h
>> @@ -343,6 +343,7 @@ void irqentry_exit_to_user_mode(struct p
>> #ifndef irqentry_state
>> typedef struct irqentry_state {
>> bool exit_rcu;
>> + bool lockdep;
>> } irqentry_state_t;
>
> Building on what Peter said do you agree this should be made into a union?
>
> It may not be strictly necessary in this patch but I think it would reflect the
> mutual exclusivity better and could be changed easy enough in the follow on
> patch which adds the pkrs state.
Why the heck should it be changed in a patch which adds something
completely different?
Either it's mutually exclusive or not and if so it want's to be done in
this patch and not in a change which extends the struct for other
reasons.
Thanks,
tglx
