On 30/04/2025 5:05 pm, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 30.04.2025 18:00, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 30/04/2025 2:13 pm, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> In a number of cases we use ALTERNATIVE_2 with both replacement insns / >>> insn sequences being identical. Avoid emitting the same code twice, and >>> instead alias the necessary helper labels to the existing ones. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> >> On a random build, the size of .altinstr_replacement drops from 0xe47 to >> 0xdf8, so not too bad. >> >> While the patch is fine, if we're adjusting the assembly ALTERNATIVE_2, >> we should make the same adjustment to the C version, even if there's >> nothing to benefit from it immediately. > Can do, but I expect that to end up more clumsy for, as you say, no real > gain.
Fine. Acked-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> > >> P.S. it would be even nicer if we would put these in mergeable sections, >> but I haven't figured out way to set the mergable unit size, which needs >> to be an absolute expression. > Well, have you missed > https://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2021-11/msg01009.html then? Apparently so, yes. ~Andrew > Yet it might still make sense to use the approach here as well, as there > are limitations to what can really be merged (by the toolchain). > > Jan
