From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753950Ab1GFRgY (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jul 2011 13:36:24 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:56764 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752031Ab1GFRgX (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jul 2011 13:36:23 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,488,1304319600"; d="scan'208";a="23370323" From: Andi Kleen To: Frederic Weisbecker Cc: Jan Beulich , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , LKML , "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] x86,64: Simplify save_regs() 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> Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 10:34:42 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20110704125742.GB1915@somewhere.redhat.com> (Frederic Weisbecker's message of "Mon, 4 Jul 2011 14:57:45 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only