[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whx=Dme9q0k0pK7S_3YwuvdMw1yKxESSUhS+eEce8HTOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 11:45:53 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, mhiramat@...nel.org,
jbaron@...mai.com, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
David.Laight@...lab.com, bp@...en8.de, julia@...com,
jeyu@...nel.org, Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] x86/static_call: Add inline static call
implementation for x86-64
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 10:39 AM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> AFAICT, all the other proposed options seem to have major issues.
I still absolutely detest this patch, and in fact it got worse from
the test of the config variable.
Honestly, the entry code being legible and simple is more important
than the extra cycle from branching to a trampoline for static calls.
Just don't do the inline case if it causes this much confusion.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists