From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Hildenbrand Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] KVM: s390: avoid jump tables Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 13:42:18 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20180206112127.19014-1-borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <7e9bb181-cec9-0781-03c0-b74d5d087c8a@redhat.com> <97098ed6-a48e-354f-d146-aca6cf90eed1@de.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: KVM , Cornelia Huck , linux-s390 To: Christian Borntraeger , Janosch Frank Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37390 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752846AbeBFMmU (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Feb 2018 07:42:20 -0500 In-Reply-To: <97098ed6-a48e-354f-d146-aca6cf90eed1@de.ibm.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 06.02.2018 13:36, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > On 02/06/2018 01:30 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 06.02.2018 12:21, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >>> Some old patches refreshed. >>> >> >> Certainly the right thing to do. Especially also interesting due to >> retpotline (if we get something like that on s390x). If I remember >> correctly, x86 highly benefits by replacing magic function pointer by >> switch statements. >> >> Should we go ahead and also rework interrupt delivery? > > Yes, that was my plan but I have not started. Do you want to work on that? Can do if you don't have time for it! -- Thanks, David / dhildenb