On 4 January 2016 at 20:21, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 01/04/2016 10:20 AM, Luck, Tony wrote: >>> May I humbly ask why the [Finnish] you don't use the equivalent of the >>> x86 _ASM_EXTABLE() macro? In fact, why don't we make that one generic, too? >> >> I'm messing with that right now (with help from Andy Lutomirski and Boris) to >> add different classes of exception table (so I can tag some instructions as being >> suitable for fixup from the machine check handler). So it might not be generic >> for much longer. >> >> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=145187079504846&w=2 >> > > I suspect that means we will also need to go back to arch-specific > sorting for x86. > AFAICT, Tony's patches are not incompatible with mine. The fixup address is offset with a large constant, but this does not affect the sort order (since that is based on the other member), and the swap operation that adds/subtracts the delta should not care about the class bits. (I don't see any changes to sort_extable() in Tony's patch) @Tony: any comments? And do you have any objections to the ia64 patch in this series? I agree that it makes sense to define a macro to emit the extable entries in this patch, but I am not sure how that extrapolates to the other architectures, and testing those is going to be cumbersome for me, so I'd prefer to keep that a local change for arm64 for now. Thanks, Ard. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
