On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 21:17:58 +0300
"Dmitry V. Levin" wrote:
> There are several places listed below where I'd prefer to see more readable
> equivalents, but feel free to leave it to respective arch maintainers.
I was going to do similar changes, but figured I'd do just that (let
the arch maintain
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 6:45 AM Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> From: "Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)"
>
> At Linux Plumbers, Andy Lutomirski approached me and pointed out that the
> function call syscall_get_arguments() implemented in x86 was horribly
> written and not optimized for the standard case of pass
On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 09:41:09AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> From: "Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)"
>
> At Linux Plumbers, Andy Lutomirski approached me and pointed out that the
> function call syscall_get_arguments() implemented in x86 was horribly
> written and not optimized for the standard cas
On Mon, 1 Apr 2019, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> From: "Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)"
>
> At Linux Plumbers, Andy Lutomirski approached me and pointed out that the
> function call syscall_get_arguments() implemented in x86 was horribly
> written and not optimized for the standard case of passing in 0 and
Hi Steven,
On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 09:41:09AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> From: "Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)"
>
> At Linux Plumbers, Andy Lutomirski approached me and pointed out that the
> function call syscall_get_arguments() implemented in x86 was horribly
> written and not optimized for the
From: "Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)"
At Linux Plumbers, Andy Lutomirski approached me and pointed out that the
function call syscall_get_arguments() implemented in x86 was horribly
written and not optimized for the standard case of passing in 0 and 6 for
the starting index and the number of system ca
