From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tony.luck@intel.com (Luck, Tony) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 11:49:26 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 6/6] arm64: switch to relative exception tables In-Reply-To: References: <1451837157-447-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <1451837157-447-7-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20160104144643.GE1616@arm.com> <568AB65A.8030901@zytor.com> <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F39FA127B@ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com> <568AC64A.4090601@zytor.com> Message-ID: <20160104194925.GA19213@agluck-desk.sc.intel.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 08:28:52PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 4 January 2016 at 20:21, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > I suspect that means we will also need to go back to arch-specific > > sorting for x86. > > > > AFAICT, Tony's patches are not incompatible with mine. The fixup > address is offset with a large constant, but this does not affect the > sort order (since that is based on the other member), and the swap > operation that adds/subtracts the delta should not care about the > class bits. (I don't see any changes to sort_extable() in Tony's > patch) Correct. Sorting is by the "insn" field (which I did not change). The "fixup" field is just modified by an offset value, so survives the math when moved to a new slot by the sort. > @Tony: any comments? And do you have any objections to the ia64 patch > in this series? The ia64 bits look OK. I haven't tested, but add my Acked-by: anyway. -Tony