[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wj+1kOrg3H7wDBEVG2nw2xeB0F_YBqrw=bMBo0nRNtCKw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 13:26:39 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: add 'runtime constant' infrastructure
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 at 13:16, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>
> I just had an idea how to clearly make this type-safe as a benefit.
You mean exactly like my patch already is, because I use the section name?
Christ people. I am throwing down the gauntlet: if you can't make a
patch that actually *improves* on what I already posted, don't even
bother.
The whole "it doesn't scale" is crazy talk. We don't want hundreds -
much less thousands - of these things. Using one named section for
each individual constant is a *good* thing.
So really: take a good hard look at that final
[PATCH 3/7] x86: add 'runtime constant' support
at
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240610204821.230388-4-torvalds@linux-foundation.org/
and only if you can *improve* on it by making it smaller or somehow
actually better.
Seriously. There's one line in that patch that really says it all:
2 files changed, 64 insertions(+)
and that's with basically optimal code generation. Improve on *THAT*.
No more of this pointless bikeshedding with arguments that make no
actual technical sense.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists