[PATCH, RFC 0/5] various small improvements and cleanup

[PATCH, RFC 0/5] various small improvements and cleanup

[Jan Beulich]

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 <jbeulich@novell.com>

Re: [PATCH, RFC 0/5] various small improvements and cleanup

[Keir Fraser]

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" <JBeulich@novell.com> 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 <jbeulich@novell.com>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH, RFC 0/5] various small improvements and cleanup

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 22.12.10 at 14:25, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org> wrote:
> 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.

That's where it gets used (in patch 2).

Jan

> On 22/12/2010 12:04, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com> 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 <jbeulich@novell.com>
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com 
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel 

Re: [PATCH, RFC 0/5] various small improvements and cleanup

[Keir Fraser]

On 22/12/2010 13:29, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote:

>>>> On 22.12.10 at 14:25, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> That's where it gets used (in patch 2).

Ah yes. Put that bit in a separate patch.

 -- Keir

> Jan
> 
>> On 22/12/2010 12:04, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com> 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 <jbeulich@novell.com>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Xen-devel mailing list
>>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> 
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH, RFC 0/5] various small improvements and cleanup

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 22.12.10 at 14:33, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org> wrote:
> On 22/12/2010 13:29, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote:
> 
>>>>> On 22.12.10 at 14:25, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> 
>> That's where it gets used (in patch 2).
> 
> Ah yes. Put that bit in a separate patch.

Using the general purpose sort is a requirement for the change
to PC-relative exception table entries. Or do you mean you want
the macro-ization split from the actual layout change?

Jan

Re: [PATCH, RFC 0/5] various small improvements and cleanup

[Keir Fraser]

On 22/12/2010 13:49, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote:

>> Ah yes. Put that bit in a separate patch.
> 
> Using the general purpose sort is a requirement for the change
> to PC-relative exception table entries. Or do you mean you want
> the macro-ization split from the actual layout change?

I thought switching sort method was a logically separate change and could go
in a separate patch. If not it doesn't matter that much.

 -- Keir