On Sun 2017-12-10 13:28:50, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Pavel Machek <pa...@ucw.cz> wrote: > > > > For the record... this should fix it. Tested on x60. More tests pending. > > This can't be right. > > At the very least, now the comment is wrong. And the comment does seem > relevant for 32-bit too:
Well, take a look at orignal patch. I'm reverting 32-bit code to
v4.15-rc1 version, while keeping 64-bit code at v4.15-rc3
version. Yes, my brain hurts from looking at the code :-(.
In the meantime, I did short test on 64-bit machine. No ill effect observed.
Hmm. Aha. Yes, the comment is wrong... as it was in wrong in -rc1.
> > - fix_processor_context();
> > -
> > /*
> > * Restore segment registers. This happens after restoring the GDT
> > * and LDT, which happen in fix_processor_context().
>
> Notice? You've moved down the 32-bit fix_processor_context() call to
> after the loadsegment() calls, which smells wrong.
Yeah, I did. There's where it was in v4.15-rc1, and that's what ws
working for me.
> That said, this *all* smells wrong. Why is there a special
> fix_processor_context() function at all with different 32-bit and
> 64-bit behavior? This code is all written to be maximally confusing.
>
> I think this could do with some re-org to make it more logical. That
> "some random things done in fix_processor_context(), other random
> things done directly in __restore_processor_state()" makes no sense at
> all to me. There's no logic to what is done where.
I have to agree.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
