On 04/15/2013 03:51 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> From: Borislav Petkov <b...@suse.de>
>
> Now that we do sort the __extable at build time, we actually are
> interested only in the case where we still do need to sort it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <b...@suse.de>
> Cc: David Daney <david.da...@cavium.com>
> ---
> kernel/extable.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/extable.c b/kernel/extable.c
> index fe35a634bf76..67460b93b1a1 100644
> --- a/kernel/extable.c
> +++ b/kernel/extable.c
> @@ -41,10 +41,10 @@ u32 __initdata main_extable_sort_needed = 1;
> /* Sort the kernel's built-in exception table */
> void __init sort_main_extable(void)
> {
> - if (main_extable_sort_needed)
> + if (main_extable_sort_needed) {
> + pr_notice("Sorting __ex_table...\n");
> sort_extable(__start___ex_table, __stop___ex_table);
> - else
> - pr_notice("__ex_table already sorted, skipping sort\n");
> + }
> }
>
On some architectures we sort at runtime, on others we sort at build time.
Is there any reason for a message at all here?
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
