[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZSkhV/mwN9psjt/X@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2023 12:52:07 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 -tip] x86/percpu: Use C for arch_raw_cpu_ptr()
* Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org> wrote:
> Right now my preference would be to leave the existing interface as-is,
> and then graft optional subcommands on top. If no subcommand is
> specified then it would default to the "run" subcommand. It's a little
> funky, but it would work well for the common case, where ~99% of the
> functionality lives. And it doesn't break existing setups and
> backports.
>
> For example:
>
> # current interface (no changes)
> objtool --mcount --orc --retpoline --uaccess vmlinux.o
>
> # same, with optional explicit "run" subcommand
> objtool run --mcount --orc --retpoline --uaccess vmlinux.o
>
> # new "size" subcommand
> obtool size [options] vmlinux.o.before vmlinux.o.after
Yeah, sounds good!
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists