On Thu, 2018-01-11 at 22:17 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * David Woodhouse: > > > > > On Sun, 2018-01-07 at 16:36 -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > > > > > > > > > My fundamental problem with this patchkit is that it is 100% x86/x86_64 > > > specific. > > > > > > ISTM we want a target independent mechanism (ie, new standard patterns, > > > options, etc) then an x86/x86_64 implementation using that target > > > independent framework (ie, the actual implementation of those new > > > standard patterns). > > From the kernel point of view, I'm not too worried about GCC internal > > implementation details. What would be really useful to agree in short > > order is the command-line options that invoke this behaviour, and the > > ABI for the thunks. > > Do you assume that you will eventually apply run-time patching to > thunks (in case they aren't needed)?
"eventually"? We've been doing it for weeks. We are desperate to release the kernel.... when can we have agreement on at *least* the command line option and the name of the thunk? Internal implementation details we really don't care about, but those we do. http://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/linux-retpoline.git
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
