On 04/25/2013 03:15 PM, David Daney wrote:
>
> Good points. As the original author of the whole mess, I don't have a
> strong preference. Certainly printing the message, that nothing is
> happening, goes against one of the main reasons for doing the sort in
> the first place: Speeding up bootin
On 04/25/2013 03:07 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 04/25/2013 03:05 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
One possible reason for having it flipped is to encourage runtime
sorting arches to convert to build time sorting.
This is actually somewhat valid, plus it is the point in time when
something actuall
On 04/25/2013 03:05 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> One possible reason for having it flipped is to encourage runtime
> sorting arches to convert to build time sorting.
>
This is actually somewhat valid, plus it is the point in time when
something actually is *happening*. A message saying "nothi
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 02:54:45PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On some architectures we sort at runtime, on others we sort at build
> time.
>
> Is there any reason for a message at all here?
The original pr_notice was arguably a debugging aid to verify that the
build-time sorting has actually h
On 04/15/2013 03:51 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> From: Borislav Petkov
>
> 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
> Cc: David Daney
> ---
> kernel/extable.c | 6 +++---
From: Borislav Petkov
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
Cc: David Daney
---
kernel/extable.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/k
6 matches
Mail list logo
