From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752188AbcADTtf (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jan 2016 14:49:35 -0500 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:4481 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751590AbcADTtc (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jan 2016 14:49:32 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,521,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="883650600" Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 11:49:26 -0800 From: "Luck, Tony" To: Ard Biesheuvel Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , Will Deacon , "linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-s390@vger.kernel.org" , "x86@kernel.org" , "mingo@redhat.com" , "heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com" , "schwidefsky@de.ibm.com" , "mattst88@gmail.com" , "ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru" , "rth@twiddle.net" , "Yu, Fenghua" , "catalin.marinas@arm.com" , "arnd@arndb.de" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "mark.rutland@arm.com" , "marc.zyngier@arm.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] arm64: switch to relative exception tables Message-ID: <20160104194925.GA19213@agluck-desk.sc.intel.com> References: <1451837157-447-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <1451837157-447-7-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20160104144643.GE1616@arm.com> <568AB65A.8030901@zytor.com> <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F39FA127B@ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com> <568AC64A.4090601@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 08:28:52PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 4 January 2016 at 20:21, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > I suspect that means we will also need to go back to arch-specific > > sorting for x86. > > > > AFAICT, Tony's patches are not incompatible with mine. The fixup > address is offset with a large constant, but this does not affect the > sort order (since that is based on the other member), and the swap > operation that adds/subtracts the delta should not care about the > class bits. (I don't see any changes to sort_extable() in Tony's > patch) Correct. Sorting is by the "insn" field (which I did not change). The "fixup" field is just modified by an offset value, so survives the math when moved to a new slot by the sort. > @Tony: any comments? And do you have any objections to the ia64 patch > in this series? The ia64 bits look OK. I haven't tested, but add my Acked-by: anyway. -Tony