From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC 0/5] various small improvements and cleanup Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 13:25:48 +0000 Message-ID: References: <4D11F77302000078000294C3@vpn.id2.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4D11F77302000078000294C3@vpn.id2.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Jan Beulich , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Yes, these all look fine to me. Actually I'm not sure whether we really need a general-purpose sort (patch 1/5). But I suppose we could use it in places like extable.c, so we might as well have it. -- Keir On 22/12/2010 12:04, "Jan Beulich" wrote: > This patch set is only loosely connected (with the exception of the first > two patches and some ordering dependencies to apply cleanly), and is > known to apply only to c/s 22467. I'm posting in the hope to get > eventual review comments in order to then possibly do a re-submission > once the large set of changes currently pending in the staging tree > passed regression testing. > > Patch 1/5: make sort() generally available > Patch 2/5: x86-64: use PC-relative exception table entries > Patch 3/5: x86: link time .data section adjustments > Patch 4/5: x86: avoid unlikely taken forward branches > Patch 5/5: use bool_t for various boolean variables > > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel