Re: [PATCH] x86 (Linux Tiny): configure out support for some processors

[Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>]

On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 16:54 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Matt Mackall wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 15:01 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> Matt Mackall wrote:
> >>> Best would be to have no ifdefs and do it all with linker magic, of
> >>> course. But that's trickier.
> >>>
> >> I concur with this, definitely.
> > 
> > Ok, so let's come up with a plan. We can:
> > 
> > a) use weak symbols, ala cond_syscall
> > b) use a special section
> > c) use early_init code (is it early enough?)
> > c) have some sort of registration list
> > 
> > Having a generic cond_call of some sort might be nice for this sort of
> > thing.
> > 
> 
> c) is out, because this has to be executed after the early generic code 
> and before the late generic code.
> 
> b) would be my first choice, and yes, it would be a good thing to have a 
> generalized mechanism for this.  For the registrant, it's pretty easy: 
> just add a macro that adds a pointer to a named section.  We then need a 
> way to get the base address and length of each such section in order to 
> be able to execute each function in sequence.

I like the idea of making a generalized hook section. But this is a bit
burdensome for Michael's little patch (unless you have time to whip
something up) so I think we should probably explore it separately.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.