From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758772AbXLOWyU (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Dec 2007 17:54:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752539AbXLOWyL (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Dec 2007 17:54:11 -0500 Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:35312 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751766AbXLOWyK (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Dec 2007 17:54:10 -0500 Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:54:19 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: Andi Kleen Cc: Andi Kleen , Avi Kivity , Glauber de Oliveira Costa , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, glommer@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu, ehabkost@redhat.com, jeremy@goop.org, anthony@codemonkey.ws, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, chrisw@sous-sol.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, hpa@zytor.com, "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] unify paravirt parts of system.h Message-ID: <20071215225419.GB2434@elf.ucw.cz> References: <11967843881946-git-send-email-gcosta@redhat.com> <11967843943958-git-send-email-gcosta@redhat.com> <11967843983411-git-send-email-gcosta@redhat.com> <11967844032081-git-send-email-gcosta@redhat.com> <11967844071346-git-send-email-gcosta@redhat.com> <4755A809.4050305@qumranet.com> <20071204193432.GI11764@bingen.suse.de> <20071205163017.GA4756@ucw.cz> <20071215132638.GA28231@basil.nowhere.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071215132638.GA28231@basil.nowhere.org> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat 2007-12-15 14:26:38, Andi Kleen wrote: > > It probably is safe to remove... but we currently support '2.8.95 > > kernel loads/resumes 2.6.24 image'... which would break if 2.8 uses > > cr8. > > No it won't. 2.8 would just restore some random useless value. Restoring random value seems wrong. Putting random values into cpu registers can break stuff, right? Even if 2.6.24 image being restored did not set %cr8 itself, it may depend on %cr8 to have "sane" value. > If 2.8 wants to use CR8 it would have to re-initialize it We are talking "2.8 restores 2.6 image" here. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html