From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756163Ab1GFUmM (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jul 2011 16:42:12 -0400 Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:63877 "EHLO mail-wy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755529Ab1GFUmK (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jul 2011 16:42:10 -0400 Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 22:42:06 +0200 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Andi Kleen , Jan Beulich , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] x86,64: Simplify save_regs() Message-ID: <20110706204201.GA19985@somewhere> References: <1309624184-9790-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> <1309624184-9790-4-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> <4E1185F3020000780004BF21@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <20110704125742.GB1915@somewhere.redhat.com> <4E14A781.8090004@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E14A781.8090004@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 11:20:49AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 07/06/2011 10:34 AM, Andi Kleen wrote: > > Frederic Weisbecker writes: > >> > >> I really did not think about code duplication, considering > >> it's better to optimize the irq entry path. > >> > >> What do you guys think? We can still revert the whole patchset. > > > > FWIW I think it should be a macro, like it was in the original code. > > > > Optimizing entry*.S for code size doesn't make a lot of sense. > > > > Code size, no. > > *Path* size and cache/prefetch friendliness is another matter. > The subroutine is bad on that account, too, so yes, this really seems > like a losing proposition. > > I'm not too fond of the gajillion obtuse macros we have, but subroutines > doesn't make it really any better. Fine, so I guess we can keep that macro conversion.