On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 08:20 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > I think I would prefer to patch always. Is there a particular > > > reason you can't do that? > > > > We could patch all the indirect calls into direct calls, but I don't > > think it's worth bothering: most simply don't matter. > > I still think it would be better to patch always.
Actually, I just figured out a neat way to do this without having to handle all the cases by hand. I'll try it and get back to you... > > Each backend wants a different patch, so alternative() doesn't cut it. > > We could look at generalizing alternative() I guess, but it works fine > > so I didn't want to touch it. > > You could at least use a common function (with the replacement passed > in as argument) for lock prefixes and your stuff I don't want to rule out patching based on location (reg lifetime etc), but there's definitely room for combining these two. Good point. Thanks! Rusty. -- Help! Save Australia from the worst of the DMCA: http://linux.org.au/law _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
