On Fri, 20 May 2016, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > I think it would be negligible, at least for interrupts, since > interrupts are already extremely expensive. But I don't love adding > assembly code that makes them even slower. The real thing I dislike > about this approach is that it's not a normal stack frame, so you need > code in the unwinder to unwind through it correctly, which makes me > think that you're not saving much complexity by adding the pushes. I fail to see what is so special about the stack frame; it's in fact pretty normal. It has added semantic value for "those who know", but the others will (pretty much correctly) consider it to be a stackframe from a function call, and be done with it. What am I missing? Thanks, -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs -- 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
