[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47B0EE46.6050208@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:54:30 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
CC: Michael Opdenacker <michael-lists@...e-electrons.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Linux-tiny@...enic.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86 (Linux Tiny): configure out support for some processors
Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 15:01 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Matt Mackall wrote:
>>> Best would be to have no ifdefs and do it all with linker magic, of
>>> course. But that's trickier.
>>>
>> I concur with this, definitely.
>
> Ok, so let's come up with a plan. We can:
>
> a) use weak symbols, ala cond_syscall
> b) use a special section
> c) use early_init code (is it early enough?)
> c) have some sort of registration list
>
> Having a generic cond_call of some sort might be nice for this sort of
> thing.
>
c) is out, because this has to be executed after the early generic code
and before the late generic code.
b) would be my first choice, and yes, it would be a good thing to have a
generalized mechanism for this. For the registrant, it's pretty easy:
just add a macro that adds a pointer to a named section. We then need a
way to get the base address and length of each such section in order to
be able to execute each function in sequence.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists