[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwKYSwytooG50fyryWpVdGEk_v=vdB=L-kAyLmmSW=bkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 10:48:51 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, gcc <gcc@....gnu.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
David Daney <ddaney.cavm@...il.com>,
Behan Webster <behanw@...verseincode.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Subject: Re: [RFC] gcc feature request: Moving blocks into sections
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> After playing with the patches again, I now understand why I did that.
> It wasn't just for optimization.
[explanation snipped]
> Anyway, if you feel that update_jump_label is too complex, I can go the
> "update at early boot" route and see how that goes.
Ugh. I'd love to see short jumps, but I do dislike binary rewriting,
and doing it at early boot seems really quite scary too.
So I wonder if this is a "ok, let's not bother, it's not worth the
pain" issue. 128 bytes of offset is very small, so there probably
aren't all that many cases that would use it.
Linus
--
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