On 25.10.23 12:34, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 11:15:16AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
+/* Low-level backend functions usable from alternative code replacements. */
+DEFINE_ASM_FUNC(x86_nop, "", .entry.text);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(x86_nop);
This is all x86 code so you don't
On 25.10.23 15:44, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 03:31:07PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
There is
#define nop() asm volatile ("nop")
in arch/x86/include/asm/special_insns.h already.
Then call it "nop_func" or so.
Okay.
It might not be needed now, but are you sure we
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 03:31:07PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> There is
>
> #define nop() asm volatile ("nop")
>
> in arch/x86/include/asm/special_insns.h already.
Then call it "nop_func" or so.
> It might not be needed now, but are you sure we won't need it in future?
No, I'm not.
What
On 25.10.23 12:34, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 11:15:16AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
+/* Low-level backend functions usable from alternative code replacements. */
+DEFINE_ASM_FUNC(x86_nop, "", .entry.text);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(x86_nop);
This is all x86 code so you don't
On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 11:15:16AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> +/* Low-level backend functions usable from alternative code replacements. */
> +DEFINE_ASM_FUNC(x86_nop, "", .entry.text);
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(x86_nop);
This is all x86 code so you don't really need the "x86_" prefix - "nop"
is
/r/20231019091520.14540-2-jgross%40suse.com
patch subject: [PATCH v3 1/5] x86/paravirt: move some functions and defines to
alternative
reproduce:
(https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20231019/202310191944.z8sc9h8o-...@intel.com/reproduce)
If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e
As a preparation for replacing paravirt patching completely by
alternative patching, move some backend functions and #defines to
alternative code and header.
Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)
---
arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h| 16
