[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080701234210.GA29962@mailshack.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 01:42:10 +0200
From: Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...lshack.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Simple changes to make traps_32.c and traps_64.c more similar
On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 09:50:04PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> nice. In terms of functionality, it is supposed to be a pure
> no-changes-intended commit, correct?
>
> In that case it makes sense to split it in two: in the first (larger)
> bit put the things that are provably invariant on the .o and can be
> verified that way.
>
> In the second one, put the things that change the .o output slightly
> (variable reordering can do that) - this we have to check more closely.
>
> (One can normally do such a splitup by editing the raw diff and
> splitting it in half that way - by sorting each chunk into the
> appropriate target patch - and then making sure the end result is still
> the same.)
Hi,
I ended up redoing it. The first patch has no influence on the generated
code; the second one does not change code size and the others are more
or less single logical changes.
I sent the patches as a reply to the original patch (replying to this one
would have been more logical... I need some sleep now). I tested compilation
and using qemu after patch 1, 2, and 7. They all run fine.
Greetings,
Alexander
> Ingo
--
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