On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 08:28:52PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 4 January 2016 at 20:21, H. Peter Anvin <[email protected]> wrote: > > I suspect that means we will also need to go back to arch-specific > > sorting for x86. > > > > AFAICT, Tony's patches are not incompatible with mine. The fixup > address is offset with a large constant, but this does not affect the > sort order (since that is based on the other member), and the swap > operation that adds/subtracts the delta should not care about the > class bits. (I don't see any changes to sort_extable() in Tony's > patch)
Correct. Sorting is by the "insn" field (which I did not change). The "fixup" field is just modified by an offset value, so survives the math when moved to a new slot by the sort. > @Tony: any comments? And do you have any objections to the ia64 patch > in this series? The ia64 bits look OK. I haven't tested, but add my Acked-by: anyway. -Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
