On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 11:48:26AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > >> No, I'm saying your concerns are baseless and too vague to > >> address. > > If you don't address them, the NAK will stand forever, or at least > > until a different group of people take over x86 maintainership. > > That's fine with me. > > I've got a specific concern: I don't see vmalloc_exec() used in this > series anywhere. I also don't see any of the actual assembly that's > being generated, or the glue code that's calling into the generated > assembly. > > I grepped around a bit in your git trees, but I also couldn't find it in > there. Any chance you could help a guy out and point us to some of the > specifics of this new, tiny JIT? vmalloc_exec() has already been dropped from the patchset - I'll switch to the new jit allocator when that's available and doing sub-page allocations. I can however point you at the code that generates the unpack functions: https://evilpiepirate.org/git/bcachefs.git/tree/fs/bcachefs/bkey.c#n727 > >> Andy, I replied explaining the difference between text_poke() and > >> text_poke_sync(). It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about, > >> so I'm not going to be wasting my time on further communications with > >> you. > > One more specific concern: This comment made me very uncomfortable and > it read to me very much like a personal attack, something which is > contrary to our code of conduct. It's not; I prefer to be direct than passive aggressive, and if I have to bow out of a discussion that isn't going anywhere I feel I owe an explanation of _why_. Too much conflict avoidance means things don't get resolved. And Andy and I are talking on IRC now, so things are proceeding in a better direction.
