From: Rik van Riel <r...@redhat.com>
Use an explicit if/else branch after __save_init_fpu(old) in
switch_fpu_prepare. This makes substituting the assignment
with a call to task_disable_lazy_fpu() in the next patch easier
to review.
Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <r...@redhat.com>
---
arch/x86/include/asm/fpu-internal.h | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/fpu-internal.h
b/arch/x86/include/asm/fpu-internal.h
index c1f66261ad12..04063751ac80 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/fpu-internal.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/fpu-internal.h
@@ -440,8 +440,9 @@ static inline fpu_switch_t switch_fpu_prepare(struct
task_struct *old, struct ta
new->thread.fpu_counter > 5);
if (__thread_has_fpu(old)) {
if (!__save_init_fpu(old))
- cpu = ~0;
- old->thread.fpu.last_cpu = cpu;
+ old->thread.fpu.last_cpu = ~0;
+ else
+ old->thread.fpu.last_cpu = cpu;
old->thread.fpu.has_fpu = 0; /* But leave fpu_owner_task! */
/* Don't change CR0.TS if we just switch! */
--
1.9.3
--
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/
