* Borislav Petkov <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 12:31:40PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > So why should an alternatives-CALL, inlined directly into call sites,
> > cost more kernel space?
>
> Not the alternatives CALL alone but inlining _copy_*_user with all
> the preparation glue around it would. Basically what we're doing
> currently.
So I reacted to this comment of yours:
> > > The disadvantage is that we have CALL after CALL [...]
Is the CALL after CALL caused by us calling an alternatives patched
function? If yes then we probably should not do that: alternatives
switching should IMHO happen at the highest possible level.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
