Re: [PATCH 0/9] x86-64 put current in r10

Jesper Juhl
2005-11-30T16:13:50Z

On 11/30/05, Matti Aarnio <matti.aarnio@zmailer.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 11:21:18PM -0500, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 23:21:18 -0500
> > From: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org>
> > To: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
> > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > Subject: [PATCH 0/9] x86-64 put current in r10
> >
> > Hello Andi,
> >
> > The following emails contain the patches to convert x86-64 to store current
> > in r10 (also at http://www.kvack.org/~bcrl/patches/v2.6.15-rc3/). This
> > provides a significant amount of code savings (~43KB) over the current
> > use of the per cpu data area. I also tested using r15, but that generated
> > code that was larger than that generated with r10. This code seems to be
> > working well for me now (it stands up to 32 and 64 bit processes and ptrace
> > users) and would be a good candidate for further exposure.
>
> I would rather prefer NOT to introduce this at this time.
> My primary concern is that during "even numbered series" there
> should not be radical internal ABI/API changes, like this one.
>
http://sosdg.org/~coywolf/lxr/source/Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt

> In 2.7 it can be introduced, by all means.
>
As many others have pointed out, there's not likely to be a 2.7 series
nytime in the forseable future. 2.6.x is where development happens.
Which in large part is why we have the -mm tree to test new stuff
before it hits mainline.
Check the sections on the various trees in
http://sosdg.org/~coywolf/lxr/source/Documentation/applying-patches.txt

--
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html