On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote: > > * Andy Lutomirski <l...@kernel.org> wrote: > >> It's statically initialized, so we don't need to dynamically >> initialize it too. >> >> Reported-by: Brian Gerst <brge...@gmail.com> >> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <l...@kernel.org> >> --- >> >> Changes since v1: Delete the code :) >> >> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c | 8 -------- >> 1 file changed, 8 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c >> index e2ed2513a51e..e08eee98a5f8 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c >> @@ -1005,14 +1005,6 @@ void enable_sep_cpu(void) >> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_32) && !boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SEP)) >> goto out; >> >> -#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32 >> - /* >> - * We cache MSR_IA32_SYSENTER_CS's value in the TSS's ss1 field -- >> - * see the big comment in struct x86_hw_tss's definition. >> - */ >> - tss->x86_tss.ss1 = __KERNEL_CS; >> -#endif >> - >> wrmsrl_safe(MSR_IA32_SYSENTER_CS, __KERNEL_CS); >> wrmsrl_safe(MSR_IA32_SYSENTER_ESP, >> (unsigned long)tss + > > So this code changed substantially in tip:x86/asm - do we still need this > patch? >
Yes, although I think it's actually the other way around -- I think this patch may have applied on top of something that never made it into tip/x86/asm. I can re-check or I could just rebase the patch (or you could apply it with the obvious fixup). It's obviously not a critical fix. --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/
