Franck Bui-Huu wrote: > Thiemo Seufer wrote: > > > > Then you have the worst of both approaches: The nicely readable > > disassembly will change under you feet, and you still need > > relocation annotations etc. for CPU-specific fixups. The end-result > > is likely more complicated and opaque than what we have now. > > Let say we generate handlers with all possible cpu fixups. Very few > instructions would be removed so the disassembly should be quite > similar after patching. No way. Just check the possible variations: 64bit, highmem, SMP, and so on. > And by emitting some nice comments in the > generated code, it should be fairly obvious to get an idea of the > final code. > > All fixups would be listed in a table with some flags to identify them > and a list of instructions which need to be relocated. At that point you have invented something which effectively emits the sourcecode for tlbex.c. > It seems to me that the kernel code would be much simpler than what we > have now. Regarding the script used to generate the assembly code, if > think it would be too. I doubt that. Thiemo
