[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <26442.1437522599@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 19:49:59 -0400
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Jason Baron <jasonbaron0@...il.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Vince Weaver <vince@...ter.net>,
"hillf.zj" <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: Kernel broken on processors without performance counters
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 12:29:21 -0700, Andy Lutomirski said:
> That's not what I meant. We do something in the C code that tells the
> build step which way the initial state goes. At link time, we make
> the initial state actually work like that. Then, at run time, we can
> still switch it again if needed.
OK, that's something different than what I read the first time around.
I'm thinking that a good adjective would be "brittle", in the face of
recalcitrant GCC releases. Look at the fun we've had over the years
getting things that *should* be fairly intuitive to work correctly (such
as "inline").
Having said that, if somebody comes up with something that actually
works, I'd be OK with it...
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists