From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755411AbdCGKv1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Mar 2017 05:51:27 -0500 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([5.9.137.197]:57286 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755301AbdCGKtf (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Mar 2017 05:49:35 -0500 Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 11:40:54 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov To: Ingo Molnar Cc: X86 ML , LKML , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/head_64.S: Pass struct boot_params' virtual address to C Message-ID: <20170307104054.mnomwgocds5it3ia@pd.tnic> References: <20170304095611.11355-1-bp@alien8.de> <20170304095611.11355-2-bp@alien8.de> <20170307091140.GD6946@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170307091140.GD6946@gmail.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 10:11:40AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > The updated comments and other details are fine, but I'm not sure about the __va() > change: the patch essentially open codes __va() in assembly - which would make any > changes to __va() [for whatever reason] more difficult, right? > > Right now we don't seem to have a single such line of assembly, so changes to > __va() can be done in C alone. Ok, that's a fair point. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.