Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] x86/alternative: Use a single access in text_poke() where possible

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 10:04:28 -0800
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx> 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