On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 01:23:01PM +1100, Balbir Singh wrote: > On 24/03/16 02:58, Torsten Duwe wrote: > > > > 1. Heuristics are bad. The better they are, the more subtly the > > way they might fail. [...] > I missed this yesterday, not on cc, but caught it on the list today I replied to Michael's last post and removed the back reference to start a new thread. The list is rather long... sorry I didn't notice. > Thanks for working on this. I did a quick look, so the CR+4 code Yes. It's only a proof of concept. That idea is yours, no doubt, and should be mentioned in the final submission. I already wrote it in my previous version, where I also have changed the arithmetic to produce small positive deltas. > plus heuristics for global/local call detection? Nope, definitely not! I flag global entries unambiguously. I had a version with R12/LR heuristics on Monday which I dumped. > I'll review this soon - hopefully tonight, but we have a long weekend coming up, so there might be delays. In the meanwhile feel free to add my signed-off-by for the CR+4 code. I am also looking at a different approach -- per thread lr0 stack. This CR+4 code leaves only 1 slot, so sibling calls are extremely dangerous, as I mentioned. But with a little attention, this patch works very well. I mostly wanted to hear opinions about a transient odd TOC value before I start polishing. Torsten -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe live-patching" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
