* Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 5:48 AM, Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > * Dave Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/10/2017 08:05 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> > -struct tss_struct doublefault_tss __cacheline_aligned = {
> >> > - .x86_tss = {
> >> > - .sp0 = STACK_START,
> >> > - .ss0 = __KERNEL_DS,
> >> > - .ldt = 0,
> >> ...
> >> > +struct x86_hw_tss doublefault_tss __cacheline_aligned = {
> >> > + .sp0 = STACK_START,
> >> > + .ss0 = __KERNEL_DS,
> >> > + .ldt = 0,
> >> > + .io_bitmap_base = INVALID_IO_BITMAP_OFFSET,
> >>
> >> FWIW, I really like the trend of renaming the hardware structures in
> >> such a way that it's clear that they *are* hardware structures.
> >>
> >> It might also be nice to reference the relevant SDM sections on the
> >> topic, or even to include a comment along the lines of how it get used.
> >> This chunk from the SDM is particularly relevant:
> >>
> >> "The TSS holds information important to 64-bit mode and that is not
> >> directly related to the task-switch mechanism."
> >
> > That makes sense - I've updated this patch with the following description
> > added to
> > struct x86_hw_tss:
>
> I've folded this in along with all the reviews so far, and a few misc
> fixes from Boris' review. I was planning to resend the whole series
> today after I track down the kbuild error. Does that sound good?
Could you please do a delta to the very latest WIP.x86/mm instead?
In the latest I have included the review tags already, and all the easy-to-do
review feedback as well, so the delta should be rasonably small.
These entry bits are destined for x86/urgent real soon, so Thomas and me are
trying to pin the tree down and do delta changes only.
If it's a simple full interdiff between your latest and WIP.x86/mm that's fine
as
well, can backmerge everything accordingly.
Thanks,
Ingo
