From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44C67C433E5 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 15:11:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 149BC20672 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 15:11:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=citrix.com header.i=@citrix.com header.b="hzKGm89f" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 149BC20672 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=citrix.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1k04m8-0004d2-Pm; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 15:10:48 +0000 Received: from us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com ([172.99.69.81]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1k04m7-0004cv-Nj for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 15:10:47 +0000 X-Inumbo-ID: 58f64a2b-d01b-11ea-8aca-bc764e2007e4 Received: from esa3.hc3370-68.iphmx.com (unknown [216.71.145.155]) by us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id 58f64a2b-d01b-11ea-8aca-bc764e2007e4; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 15:10:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=citrix.com; s=securemail; t=1595862647; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=FySu7NYNkuhkayE6m51zCZc7Az18SjtYiAYtvXrdIJ0=; b=hzKGm89frz5lrozRIEGBcmne3Pxc2zfGLhlbxD3Pdl2s9Xz+U2rJA5ZI WXK15Qv+G5DgNQP9kHIe1iO2cT//urePke4yz3im14QJkBQ4NmU6YqcXC 1kWHX/rPkHu+X1/01KpBlGAYWQYEJhfAuziK7VYqpLsG5t+/9QXOVx9kM 8=; Authentication-Results: esa3.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none IronPort-SDR: dSgr5E+vM4PNlPlc1sR9CerkiXuoznkHZYav8BJemLR0KjkXNoPsxHlynaiilZKGd2MVTS3q+V FpUYGOJc/ov5KZ/m7BgMr4RAnh7AfTJb9shBaOABmxZI7Ps4U3+I7vxNoY2ZNMxuTbKq2YHoRl aWSYDcwozAEYIbh0PIdkCFhlTRDeSjGL+q4ccor176FJEaRduWUdznn4/BpIN8bgbudAMZHCuK cJGcdAWxV1u8s2TE2p4jXCLX/99U0HwGBgFOziNu8XDxFLsniRqfkBkjI4hYQ0HPxPaM8/3cEV +xU= X-SBRS: 2.7 X-MesageID: 23262252 X-Ironport-Server: esa3.hc3370-68.iphmx.com X-Remote-IP: 162.221.158.21 X-Policy: $RELAYED X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.75,402,1589256000"; d="scan'208";a="23262252" Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 17:10:39 +0200 From: Roger Pau =?utf-8?B?TW9ubsOp?= To: Jan Beulich , Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: drop ASM_{CL,ST}AC Message-ID: <20200727151039.GT7191@Air-de-Roger> References: <58b9211a-f6dd-85da-d0bd-c927ac537a5d@suse.com> <048c3702-f0b0-6f8e-341e-bec6cfaded27@suse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <048c3702-f0b0-6f8e-341e-bec6cfaded27@suse.com> X-ClientProxiedBy: AMSPEX02CAS02.citrite.net (10.69.22.113) To AMSPEX02CL02.citrite.net (10.69.22.126) X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" , Wei Liu Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Sender: "Xen-devel" On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 12:49:04PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > Use ALTERNATIVE directly, such that at the use sites it is visible that > alternative code patching is in use. Similarly avoid hiding the fact in > SAVE_ALL. > > No change to generated code. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich I think the code is correct, I'm not sure however whether open coding ASM_CLAC/STAC is better than what we currently do. I will leave for Andrew to decide, since he is more knowledgeable of such piece of code. Thanks, Roger.