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 13:33:29 +0000 Message-ID: References: <4D120B3D0200007800029532@vpn.id2.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4D120B3D0200007800029532@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 Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 22/12/2010 13:29, "Jan Beulich" wrote: >>>> On 22.12.10 at 14:25, Keir Fraser 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" 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 > > >