From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751734AbcJAX1N (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Oct 2016 19:27:13 -0400 Received: from mail-ua0-f177.google.com ([209.85.217.177]:34610 "EHLO mail-ua0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751161AbcJAX1I (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Oct 2016 19:27:08 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1475353895-22175-2-git-send-email-riel@redhat.com> References: <1475353895-22175-1-git-send-email-riel@redhat.com> <1475353895-22175-2-git-send-email-riel@redhat.com> From: Andy Lutomirski Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 16:26:47 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/5] x86,fpu: split prev/next task fpu state handling To: Rik van Riel Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Thomas Gleixner , Borislav Petkov , Paolo Bonzini , X86 ML , Dave Hansen , Ingo Molnar Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Oct 1, 2016 1:49 PM, wrote: > > From: Rik van Riel > > Move all handling of the next state FPU state handling into > switch_fpu_finish, in preparation for more lazily switching > FPU states. > > CR0.TS state is mirrored in a per-cpu variable, instead of > being passed around in a local variable, because that will > not be possible later in the series. This seems reasonable in principle, but IMO it would be less scary if you rebased onto this: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/luto/linux.git/log/?h=x86/fpu Because the amount of testing needed and the amount of code that gets rearranged would be reduced. Want to fold those patches into you series? I can also just send them in directly, although this is an awkward time to do so. --Andy