[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrUBebEndF1PJ9+6fdYVik9LC717JfEaNks9hXr-mzOF=A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 11:03:46 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/nmi: Optimize the check for being in the
repeat_nmi code
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 11:20 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> Joking aside, I'll bite: while in the kernel we try to avoid ever actually
>> _writing_ new assembly code
>
> .. also, when we do, I think we should care about it.
>
> If you write asm, and the end result is noticeably worse than what
> your average compiler would generate, exactly why are you writing it
> in asm in the first place?
>
> So I think people should aim to avoid asm. Andy certainly knows that,
> and I loved his "rewrite a lot of the low-level system call code"
> patches.
>
> But the corollary to that is that if you _do_ write assembler, please
> have some pride in the code, and don't half-arse it.
>
Geez, I didn't expect anyone to take my silly comment remotely
seriously :) And I do like Steven's patches.
--Andy, who just looked at binutils source to figure out WTF "nobits"
meant. Take that, asm!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists