From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752276AbbFBTfI (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jun 2015 15:35:08 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0180.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.180]:46420 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751422AbbFBTew (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jun 2015 15:34:52 -0400 X-Session-Marker: 726F737465647440676F6F646D69732E6F7267 X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,rostedt@goodmis.org,:::::::::::::::::::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:800:960:973:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1538:1567:1593:1594:1711:1714:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2553:2559:2562:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3622:3865:3866:3868:3871:3872:5007:6261:6742:7875:10004:10400:10848:10967:11232:11658:11914:12517:12519:12663:12740:13069:13311:13357:21080,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0 X-HE-Tag: guide69_6450a1f69d252 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1641 Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 15:34:47 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Denys Vlasenko Cc: Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , Borislav Petkov , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andy Lutomirski , Oleg Nesterov , Frederic Weisbecker , Alexei Starovoitov , Will Drewry , Kees Cook , x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/asm/entry/32: Open-code CLEAR_RREGS. No code changes. Message-ID: <20150602153447.330cb569@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <1433271842-9139-1-git-send-email-dvlasenk@redhat.com> References: <1433271842-9139-1-git-send-email-dvlasenk@redhat.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.25; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2 Jun 2015 21:04:01 +0200 Denys Vlasenko wrote: > This macro is small, has only four callsites, and one of them is > slightly different using a conditional parameter. > > A few saved lines aren't worth the resulting obfuscation. I'm curious, why? Did someone recommend this change? I don't see it as obfuscation at all. -- Steve > > Generated machine code is identical.