On 03/26/2015 09:56 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 01:19:38PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
@@ -11368,6 +11349,7 @@ static void
s390_reorg (void)
{
bool pool_overflow = false;
+ int hw_before, hw_after;
/* Make sure all splits have been performed; splits
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:30:38AM +0100, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
At a second glance it is not really clear to me why we disable hotpatching
for nested functions at
all. While it is probably a bit difficult to actually hotpatch them I don't
see why we should
prevent it. We probably just
Hi!
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 01:19:38PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
@@ -11368,6 +11349,7 @@ static void
s390_reorg (void)
{
bool pool_overflow = false;
+ int hw_before, hw_after;
/* Make sure all splits have been performed; splits after
machine_dependent_reorg might confuse
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 12:22:21PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
@@ -5308,34 +5309,14 @@ s390_asm_output_function_label (FILE *asm_out_file,
const char *fname,
stored directly before the label without crossing a cacheline
boundary. All this is necessary to make sure the trampoline
e0083a3044797bf13ebdc9294fb0ebc117cbed4b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dominik Vogt v...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 13:48:26 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] S390: Hotpatching fixes.
* Properly align function labels with -mhotpatch and add test cases.
* Include the nops after the function label
New patch with review results:
* 6-byte-NOP only for ZARCH
* Formatting.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
From 176268849643c46427ea873c35390700ea7a4489 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dominik Vogt v...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 13:48:26 +0100
Subject: [PATCH
cases.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
From 2d42c989a83fac102294ebdff6e68ca4bd571915 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dominik Vogt v...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 13:48:26 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] S390: Hotpatching fixes.
* Properly align function labels
