From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752758AbdLKTMQ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 11 Dec 2017 14:12:16 -0500
Received: from mail-it0-f67.google.com ([209.85.214.67]:44939 "EHLO
        mail-it0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751759AbdLKTMN (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 11 Dec 2017 14:12:13 -0500
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosbXy46zXi8QvMC/FkRq+yVqaM20UfhG/OhSxbR9Vo4tGEX9HKKYPn8vV8Uw6Y98sOv6bJnV/nKRwT9YmGlwgg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrX33FT_G_LPLmMkr_ifPEATToZ2=2pjyOj74o1-__-O-g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2809506.pL8kVbvXcY@aspire.rjw.lan> <20171210213804.GA4660@amd>
 <76028A95-1CE1-49AA-9929-9C15FFC520EB@amacapital.net> <151331264.Sjvx2oHGGq@aspire.rjw.lan>
 <CA+55aFwPW3z6S_Sfm_2o1+HUYhhPViJ0zCWvZza=K5G0=wtYxw@mail.gmail.com> <CALCETrX33FT_G_LPLmMkr_ifPEATToZ2=2pjyOj74o1-__-O-g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 11:12:11 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: SyHD4gcvoVUp6e7WPgX8t8POr64
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxm28QxRzjCEdHDvmji6oekQ5a3w9R3uBzhx2iJgEgQaw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>
> I'll try to get to this in a day or so -- is that okay?  Or should we
> do some trivial fix/revert and fix it for real next time around?

I don't think we want some trivial fix/revert just to keep it working.
This code is too fragile as-is, and I think that "make it work" is
more than reverting. You did fix real issues on x86-64 with odd
segment use, for example.

                Linus