On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 1:30 PM Helge Deller wrote:
>
> On 07.08.2018 20:11, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 3:34 PM Helge Deller wrote:
> >> So, your patch is basically OK and doesn't break anything.
> >> But I agree with Dave and Andrew, that THIS_IP is ugly.
> >
> > I don't
On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 1:30 PM Helge Deller wrote:
>
> On 07.08.2018 20:11, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 3:34 PM Helge Deller wrote:
> >> So, your patch is basically OK and doesn't break anything.
> >> But I agree with Dave and Andrew, that THIS_IP is ugly.
> >
> > I don't
On 07.08.2018 20:11, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 3:34 PM Helge Deller wrote:
>> So, your patch is basically OK and doesn't break anything.
>> But I agree with Dave and Andrew, that THIS_IP is ugly.
>
> I don't disagree, and other maintainers have remarked on _THIS_IP_
>
On 07.08.2018 20:11, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 3:34 PM Helge Deller wrote:
>> So, your patch is basically OK and doesn't break anything.
>> But I agree with Dave and Andrew, that THIS_IP is ugly.
>
> I don't disagree, and other maintainers have remarked on _THIS_IP_
>
On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 3:34 PM Helge Deller wrote:
>
> On 03.08.2018 22:33, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 12:09 PM John David Anglin
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2018-08-03 2:11 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> >>> But the kernel uses the generic_THIS_IP_ *everywhere*, not
On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 3:34 PM Helge Deller wrote:
>
> On 03.08.2018 22:33, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 12:09 PM John David Anglin
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2018-08-03 2:11 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> >>> But the kernel uses the generic_THIS_IP_ *everywhere*, not
On 03.08.2018 22:33, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 12:09 PM John David Anglin
> wrote:
>>
>> On 2018-08-03 2:11 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
>>> But the kernel uses the generic_THIS_IP_ *everywhere*, not parisc's
>>> custom current_text_addr(). So if this did actually break
On 03.08.2018 22:33, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 12:09 PM John David Anglin
> wrote:
>>
>> On 2018-08-03 2:11 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
>>> But the kernel uses the generic_THIS_IP_ *everywhere*, not parisc's
>>> custom current_text_addr(). So if this did actually break
On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 12:09 PM John David Anglin wrote:
>
> On 2018-08-03 2:11 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > But the kernel uses the generic_THIS_IP_ *everywhere*, not parisc's
> > custom current_text_addr(). So if this did actually break unwinding,
> > you should have noticed by now.
> The
On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 12:09 PM John David Anglin wrote:
>
> On 2018-08-03 2:11 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > But the kernel uses the generic_THIS_IP_ *everywhere*, not parisc's
> > custom current_text_addr(). So if this did actually break unwinding,
> > you should have noticed by now.
> The
On 2018-08-03 2:11 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
But the kernel uses the generic_THIS_IP_ *everywhere*, not parisc's
custom current_text_addr(). So if this did actually break unwinding,
you should have noticed by now.
The unwind problem was noticed.
Patches were recently applied to gcc and
On 2018-08-03 2:11 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
But the kernel uses the generic_THIS_IP_ *everywhere*, not parisc's
custom current_text_addr(). So if this did actually break unwinding,
you should have noticed by now.
The unwind problem was noticed.
Patches were recently applied to gcc and
On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 10:57 AM John David Anglin wrote:
>
> On 2018-08-02 4:31 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > If I understand your point correctly, is it that you're saying that
> > _THIS_IP_ should be implemented in terms of inline assembly (as in
> > what current_text_addr() is currently)?
On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 10:57 AM John David Anglin wrote:
>
> On 2018-08-02 4:31 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > If I understand your point correctly, is it that you're saying that
> > _THIS_IP_ should be implemented in terms of inline assembly (as in
> > what current_text_addr() is currently)?
On 2018-08-02 4:31 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
If I understand your point correctly, is it that you're saying that
_THIS_IP_ should be implemented in terms of inline assembly (as in
what current_text_addr() is currently)? If that's what you mean and
I'm understanding correctly, my point is
On 2018-08-02 4:31 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
If I understand your point correctly, is it that you're saying that
_THIS_IP_ should be implemented in terms of inline assembly (as in
what current_text_addr() is currently)? If that's what you mean and
I'm understanding correctly, my point is
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 5:49 PM John David Anglin wrote:
>
> On 2018-08-01 6:18 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> >> What about the uses in the fs support, etc?
> > Sorry, I don't see it?
> I mean _THIS_IP_.
I don't understand, I'm referring to current_text_addr(). Maybe this
explains more what I'm
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 5:49 PM John David Anglin wrote:
>
> On 2018-08-01 6:18 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> >> What about the uses in the fs support, etc?
> > Sorry, I don't see it?
> I mean _THIS_IP_.
I don't understand, I'm referring to current_text_addr(). Maybe this
explains more what I'm
On 2018-08-01 6:18 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
What about the uses in the fs support, etc?
Sorry, I don't see it?
I mean _THIS_IP_.
Dave
--
John David Anglin dave.ang...@bell.net
On 2018-08-01 6:18 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
What about the uses in the fs support, etc?
Sorry, I don't see it?
I mean _THIS_IP_.
Dave
--
John David Anglin dave.ang...@bell.net
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 3:12 PM John David Anglin wrote:
>
> On 2018-08-01 5:49 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > Thoughts? Idea being there's only one call site in your tree that has
> > this requirement (and the other one in
> > include/net/inet_connection_sock.h I don't think is correct, and
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 3:12 PM John David Anglin wrote:
>
> On 2018-08-01 5:49 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > Thoughts? Idea being there's only one call site in your tree that has
> > this requirement (and the other one in
> > include/net/inet_connection_sock.h I don't think is correct, and
On 2018-08-01 5:49 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
Thoughts? Idea being there's only one call site in your tree that has
this requirement (and the other one in
include/net/inet_connection_sock.h I don't think is correct, and will
send a patch out imminently).
What about the uses in the fs support,
On 2018-08-01 5:49 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
Thoughts? Idea being there's only one call site in your tree that has
this requirement (and the other one in
include/net/inet_connection_sock.h I don't think is correct, and will
send a patch out imminently).
What about the uses in the fs support,
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 2:27 PM John David Anglin wrote:
>
> On 2018-08-01 4:52 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > Dave, thanks for the quick review!
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 1:10 PM John David Anglin
> > wrote:
> >> On 2018-08-01 2:22 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> >>> As part of the effort
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 2:27 PM John David Anglin wrote:
>
> On 2018-08-01 4:52 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > Dave, thanks for the quick review!
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 1:10 PM John David Anglin
> > wrote:
> >> On 2018-08-01 2:22 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> >>> As part of the effort
On 2018-08-01 4:52 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
Dave, thanks for the quick review!
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 1:10 PM John David Anglin wrote:
On 2018-08-01 2:22 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
As part of the effort to reduce the code duplication between _THIS_IP_
and current_text_addr(), let's
On 2018-08-01 4:52 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
Dave, thanks for the quick review!
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 1:10 PM John David Anglin wrote:
On 2018-08-01 2:22 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
As part of the effort to reduce the code duplication between _THIS_IP_
and current_text_addr(), let's
Dave, thanks for the quick review!
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 1:10 PM John David Anglin wrote:
>
> On 2018-08-01 2:22 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > As part of the effort to reduce the code duplication between _THIS_IP_
> > and current_text_addr(), let's consolidate callers of
> >
Dave, thanks for the quick review!
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 1:10 PM John David Anglin wrote:
>
> On 2018-08-01 2:22 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > As part of the effort to reduce the code duplication between _THIS_IP_
> > and current_text_addr(), let's consolidate callers of
> >
On 2018-08-01 2:22 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
As part of the effort to reduce the code duplication between _THIS_IP_
and current_text_addr(), let's consolidate callers of
current_text_addr() to use _THIS_IP_.
Using the generic _THIS_IP_ results in significantly longer code than
the parisc
On 2018-08-01 2:22 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
As part of the effort to reduce the code duplication between _THIS_IP_
and current_text_addr(), let's consolidate callers of
current_text_addr() to use _THIS_IP_.
Using the generic _THIS_IP_ results in significantly longer code than
the parisc
As part of the effort to reduce the code duplication between _THIS_IP_
and current_text_addr(), let's consolidate callers of
current_text_addr() to use _THIS_IP_.
Signed-off-by: Nick Desaulniers
---
arch/parisc/kernel/unwind.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff
As part of the effort to reduce the code duplication between _THIS_IP_
and current_text_addr(), let's consolidate callers of
current_text_addr() to use _THIS_IP_.
Signed-off-by: Nick Desaulniers
---
arch/parisc/kernel/unwind.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff
34 matches
Mail list logo
