Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/asm/irq: Don't use POPF but STI

2015-04-21 Thread Andy Lutomirski
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 5:45 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> >> Totally untested and not signed off yet: because we'd first have to >> make sure (via irq flags debugging) that it's not used in reverse, to >> re-disable interrupts: > > Not only mi

Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/asm/irq: Don't use POPF but STI

2015-04-21 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 5:45 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Totally untested and not signed off yet: because we'd first have to > make sure (via irq flags debugging) that it's not used in reverse, to > re-disable interrupts: Not only might that happen in some place, I *really* doubt that a conditiona

Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/asm/irq: Don't use POPF but STI

2015-04-21 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 02:45:58PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > From 6f01f6381e8293c360b7a89f516b8605e357d563 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Ingo Molnar > > Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 13:32:13 +0200 > > Subject: [PATCH] x86/asm/irq: Don't use POPF but STI > > > > So

Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/asm/irq: Don't use POPF but STI

2015-04-21 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 02:45:58PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > From 6f01f6381e8293c360b7a89f516b8605e357d563 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Ingo Molnar > Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 13:32:13 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH] x86/asm/irq: Don't use POPF but STI > > So because the POPF instruction is slow and