On 13 Nov 2007 at 13:46, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
quoted text > +void *text_poke_early(void *addr, const void *opcode, size_t len)
> +{
> + memcpy(addr, opcode, len);
> + text_sync(addr, len);
> + return addr;
> +}
why do you need this function (vs. using text_poke throughout)?
quoted text > +#define kernel_wp_save(cr0) \
> + do { \
> + preempt_disable(); \
> + cr0 = read_cr0(); \
> + if (cpu_data(smp_processor_id()).wp_works_ok) \
why do you need this test? if cr0.wp is ineffective, then it doesn't
matter whether it's on or off (in fact, at least the intel manual
says that 386s would not even let you change its value, they'll
silently ignore attempts of setting the wp bit).
quoted text > + write_cr0(cr0 & ~X86_CR0_WP); \
> + } while (0)
> +
> +#define kernel_wp_restore(cr0) \
> + do { \
> + if (cpu_data(smp_processor_id()).wp_works_ok) \
ditto...
quoted text > + write_cr0(cr0); \
> + preempt_enable(); \
> + } while (0)
>
> #endif /* _I386_ALTERNATIVE_H */
-
unsubscribe notice To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at
http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Messages in current thread:
Re: [patch 06/11] Text Edit Lock - Alternative code for x86 , pageexec , (Tue Nov 13, 1:54 pm)