linux-kernel - Re: x86: split spinlock implementations out into their own files

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080724103223.GE28817@elte.hu>
Date:	Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:32:23 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: x86: split spinlock implementations out into their own files


* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:

> ftrace requires certain low-level code, like spinlocks and timestamps, 
> to be compiled without -pg in order to avoid infinite recursion.  This 
> patch splits out the core paravirt spinlocks and the Xen spinlocks 
> into separate files which can be compiled without -pg.
>
> Also do xen/time.c while we're about it.  As a result, we can now use 
> ftrace within a Xen domain.

applied to x86/spinlocks, thanks Jeremy.

	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/