On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> wrote: >> >> Please don't. IMO it's really nice that we don't use trap gates at >> all on x86_64, and I find the conditional_sti thing much nicer than >> having to audit all of the entry code to see whether it's safe to run >> it with IRQs on. > > So I'm not sure I see much difference, but I'd certainly be ok with > just moving the "conditional_sti()" up unconditionally to be the first > thing in do_device_not_available().
I'd be fine with that. The important difference is that it's after swapgs. --Andy > > The point being that we still *not* just randomly enable interrupts > because we decide that the callers are wrong. > > Linus -- Andy Lutomirski AMA Capital Management, LLC -- 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/
