[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKv+Gu97y1vrqWa-mACkMveJTqP23FJUy2M21Fv8-ZUAkbuqRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 19:45:31 +0200
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Matthew Helsley <mhelsley@...are.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [POC][RFC][PATCH 1/2] jump_function: Addition of new feature "jump_function"
On 8 October 2018 at 19:44, Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
>> Does that mean that architectures could opt out of doing the whole
>> objtool + relocation processing thing, and instead take the hit of
>> going through the trampoline for all calls?
>
> There are architectures that aren't [currently] supported by objtool at
> all anyway.
>
That was kind of my point :-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists