On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Borislav Petkov <b...@alien8.de> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:57:22AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> Would it be worth making a decision on task_work_add vs. stack >> switching first? > > Probably a prudent thing to do in order to save unnecessary cycles :-) > >> Stack switching pros: all this lockless allocation stuff is completely >> unnecessary, and it's plausible that the stack switching code will be >> added anyway. > > Yes. > > However, I'd like to be very sure this thing doesn't introduce any > regressions to the MCA code. So even if Tony's testing passes, I'd like > to be very conservative here and stress it more than usual. Because once > this thing hits upstream and stuff starts breaking, it'll be a serious > PITA reverting it. > > I hope you can understand my concerns.
I agree completely. > > Btw, which branch has your latest version - I'd like to take a look at > it in detail. https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/luto/linux.git/log/?h=x86/paranoid I'm not quite ready to send v3. I want to do two things first: 1. Consider disabling the stack switch for double_fault. 2. Clean up the macros. I'll validate this by ensuring that the generated code is identical to the current version. IOW, I don't expect the asm for machine_check to change. --Andy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/