On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 10:04:28 -0800 Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopher...@intel.com> wrote:
> > What atomicity guarantee does the above require? > > I was asking in the context of static calls. My understanding is that > the write to change the imm32 of the CALL needs to be atomic from a > code fetch perspective so that we don't jump to a junk address. > > Or were you saying that Intel gave an official OK on text_poke_bp()? Yes, the latter. I was talking about Intel giving the official OK for text_poke_bp(). -- Steve
