Re: [PATCH] [5/12] x86_64: Make patching more robust, fix paravirt issue

[Glauber de Oliveira Costa]

On 8/20/07, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Chris Wright wrote:
> > That did get backed out (at least the part that broke paravirt patching)
> > in 602033ed5907a59ce86f709082a35be047743a86.  Linus' tree should be
> > working fine right now with d34fda4a84c18402640a1a2342d6e6d9829e6db7
> > committed, and can be further refined with the patch below that's just
> > waiting on some further testing.
> >
>
> I don't think this is necessary.  It isn't worth complicating the
> interface to avoid the memcpy.
>
>     J
Damn,

I can't believe I've just lost a night tracking the issue, without
seeing the discussion here ;-)
I came out to this very same conclusion, and was about to send a patch
that fixes it, by doing a memcpy before starting the instruction
replacement.

(I wouldn't say anything, as this is solved, but my night have to get
some value, after all! ;-)

So I'm with Jeremy. We don't lose too much by putting a memcpy there,
this code is not exactly critical. It also seems cleaner, and less
error prone. I have a patch ready here, but I think by this time, you
guys have too ;-)

-- 
Glauber de Oliveira Costa.
"Free as in Freedom"
http://glommer.net

"The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act."
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/