Re: [patch] 2.6.1-mm5 compile do not use shared extable code for

[David Mosberger <davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com>]

>>>>> On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:56:26 +1100, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> said:

  Paul> David Mosberger writes:
  >> How about the attached one?  It will touch memory more when
  >> moving an element down, but we're talking about exception tables
  >> here, and I don't think module loading time would be affected in
  >> any noticable fashion.

  Paul> Hmmm...  Stylistically I much prefer to pick up the new
  Paul> element, move the others up and just drop the new element in
  Paul> where it should go, rather than doing swap, swap, swap down
  Paul> the list.

The original code may be slightly faster, but who cares?  From a
readability point of view, I think my version is easier to understand.

  Paul> Also, I don't think there is enough code there to be worth the
  Paul> bother of trying to abstract the generic routine so you can
  Paul> plug in different compare and move-element routines.  The
  Paul> whole sort routine is only 16 lines of code, after all.  Why
  Paul> not just have an ia64-specific version of sort_extable?
  Paul> That's what I thought you would do.

That's certainly an option.  It was Andrew who called for a generic
version.  I tend to agree with him because even though it's just a
little sort routine, it's one of those things where stupid errors tend
to creep in.  And like I mentioned earlier, Alpha needs the exact same
code (and frankly, I'm surprised there are 64-bit platforms that do
NOT use the location-relative format that Richard invented).

	--david