Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] x86, mce: Add __mcsafe_copy()

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Luck, Tony wrote: >>> I do select it, but by randconfig I still need to handle the >>> CONFIG_X86_MCE=n case. >>> I'm seriously wondering whether the ifdef still makes sense. Now I don't have an extra exception table and routines to sort/search/fixup, it

RE: [PATCH v7 3/3] x86, mce: Add __mcsafe_copy()

>> I do select it, but by randconfig I still need to handle the >> CONFIG_X86_MCE=n case. >> >>> I'm seriously wondering whether the ifdef still makes sense. Now I don't >>> have an extra exception table and routines to sort/search/fixup, it doesn't >>> seem as useful as it was a few iterations

Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] x86, mce: Add __mcsafe_copy()

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Dan Williams wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Luck, Tony wrote: >> You were heading towards: >> >> ld: undefined __mcsafe_copy > > True, we'd also need a dummy mcsafe_copy() definition to compile it > out in the disabled case. > >> since that is also

Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] x86, mce: Add __mcsafe_copy()

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Dan Williams wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Luck, Tony wrote: >> You were heading towards: >> >> ld: undefined __mcsafe_copy > > True, we'd also need a dummy mcsafe_copy() definition to compile it > out in

RE: [PATCH v7 3/3] x86, mce: Add __mcsafe_copy()

>> I do select it, but by randconfig I still need to handle the >> CONFIG_X86_MCE=n case. >> >>> I'm seriously wondering whether the ifdef still makes sense. Now I don't >>> have an extra exception table and routines to sort/search/fixup, it doesn't >>> seem as useful as it was a few iterations

Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] x86, mce: Add __mcsafe_copy()

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Luck, Tony wrote: >>> I do select it, but by randconfig I still need to handle the >>> CONFIG_X86_MCE=n case. >>> I'm seriously wondering whether the ifdef still makes sense. Now I don't have an extra exception table and routines to

Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] x86, mce: Add __mcsafe_copy()

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Luck, Tony wrote: > You were heading towards: > > ld: undefined __mcsafe_copy True, we'd also need a dummy mcsafe_copy() definition to compile it out in the disabled case. > since that is also inside the #ifdef. > > Weren't you going to "select" this? > I do

Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] x86, mce: Add __mcsafe_copy()

You were heading towards: ld: undefined __mcsafe_copy since that is also inside the #ifdef. Weren't you going to "select" this? I'm seriously wondering whether the ifdef still makes sense. Now I don't have an extra exception table and routines to sort/search/fixup, it doesn't seem as useful

Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] x86, mce: Add __mcsafe_copy()

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Tony Luck wrote: > Make use of the EXTABLE_FAULT exception table entries. This routine > returns a structure to indicate the result of the copy: > > struct mcsafe_ret { > u64 trapnr; > u64 remain; > }; > > If the copy is successful, then both

Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] x86, mce: Add __mcsafe_copy()

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Luck, Tony wrote: > You were heading towards: > > ld: undefined __mcsafe_copy True, we'd also need a dummy mcsafe_copy() definition to compile it out in the disabled case. > since that is also inside the #ifdef. > > Weren't you going to

Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] x86, mce: Add __mcsafe_copy()

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Tony Luck wrote: > Make use of the EXTABLE_FAULT exception table entries. This routine > returns a structure to indicate the result of the copy: > > struct mcsafe_ret { > u64 trapnr; > u64 remain; > }; > > If the copy is

Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] x86, mce: Add __mcsafe_copy()

You were heading towards: ld: undefined __mcsafe_copy since that is also inside the #ifdef. Weren't you going to "select" this? I'm seriously wondering whether the ifdef still makes sense. Now I don't have an extra exception table and routines to sort/search/fixup, it doesn't seem as useful