Re: Unnecessary overhead with stack protector.

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:37:06 -0700
> Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > > > This looks like a fairly serious problem to me, but I'm confused by the
> > > > commit ID.  February 2008 - is this correct?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > That date is pure fiction AFAICT. And the Mercurial kernel repo says May 2008...
> > > Is there some way to get the date a change was merged into the official tree as
> > > opposed to the date it was created in some other tree?
> > 
> > oh, so someone _did_ read my email!
> > 
> > 
> > git show --pretty=fuller 113c5413cf9051cc50b88befdc42e3402bb92115
> > 
> > commit 113c5413cf9051cc50b88befdc42e3402bb92115
> > Author:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> > AuthorDate: Thu Feb 14 10:36:03 2008 +0100
> > Commit:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> > CommitDate: Mon May 26 16:15:32 2008 +0200
> > 
> > I think the CommitDate is when it hit mainline.
> 
> The X-Git-Tag from the web page says it first appeared in mainline in
> 2.6.30-rc1:
> 
> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:36:03 +0000 (+0100)
> Subject: x86: unify stackprotector features
> X-Git-Tag: v2.6.30-rc1~2^2~50^2~67^2~11
> X-Git-Url: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux%2Fkernel%2Fgit%2Ftorvalds%2Flinux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=113c5413c
> 
> Looks like it went through three merges on the way there?

yep. Note that x86/urgent has this queued up now:

 14a3f40: x86: Remove STACKPROTECTOR_ALL

	Ingo