Re: Kernel oops with 2.6.26, padlock and ipsec: probably problem with fpu state changes

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...>, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>, Wolfgang Walter <wolfgang.walter@...>, netdev@vger.kernel.org <netdev@...>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org <linux-kernel@...>, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk <viro@...>, vegard.nossum@gmail.com <vegard.nossum@...>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...>
Date: Monday, August 11, 2008 - 3:22 pm

* Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> wrote:


no fundamental objection to the x86 bits.

shouldnt this:

+       if (!in_interrupt())
+               return 0;

just be eliminated and the cr0/TS save/restore be made unconditional?  
irq-assymetric APIs are not nice in general.

Reading/setting cr0 isnt _that_ slow. (or if it is, by how much does it 
slow things down, exactly?)

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: Kernel oops with 2.6.26, padlock and ipsec: probably pro..., Ingo Molnar, (Mon Aug 11, 3:22 pm)