From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964959AbWILHsv (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Sep 2006 03:48:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964968AbWILHsv (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Sep 2006 03:48:51 -0400 Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:38883 "EHLO mail.goop.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964959AbWILHsu (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Sep 2006 03:48:50 -0400 Message-ID: <4506665D.2090001@goop.org> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 00:48:45 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060907) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Arjan van de Ven CC: akpm@osdl.org, ak@suse.de, mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: i386 PDA patches use of %gs References: <1158046540.2992.5.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> In-Reply-To: <1158046540.2992.5.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Arjan van de Ven wrote: > Jeremy, is there a reason you're specifically using %gs and not %fs? If > not, would you mind a switch to using %fs instead? > The main reason for using %gs was to take advantage of gcc's TLS support. I intend to measure the cost of gs vs fs, and if there's a significant difference I'll switch. J