On 08/21/2013 10:14 AM, Andi Kleen wrote: > The rest seems reasonable to me, although I haven't tried to untangle > the full dependencies between C++ and asm code for retries. > It would be likely cleaner to just keep the retries fully > in C++ like the original patch did. There's no advantage > of going back to assembler.
Isn't there? The transaction will be fractionally smaller, for not having had to see the unwinding of the c++ stack frame. r~
