Xen devel - Dec 2010 - [PATCH, RFC 0/5] various small improvements and cleanup

This patch set is only loosely connected (with the exception of the first
two patches and some ordering dependencies to apply cleanly), and is
known to apply only to c/s 22467. I''m posting in the hope to get
eventual review comments in order to then possibly do a re-submission
once the large set of changes currently pending in the staging tree
passed regression testing.

Patch 1/5: make sort() generally available
Patch 2/5: x86-64: use PC-relative exception table entries
Patch 3/5: x86: link time .data section adjustments
Patch 4/5: x86: avoid unlikely taken forward branches
Patch 5/5: use bool_t for various boolean variables

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Yes, these all look fine to me. Actually I''m not sure whether we really
need
a general-purpose sort (patch 1/5). But I suppose we could use it in places
like extable.c, so we might as well have it.

 -- Keir

On 22/12/2010 12:04, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote:
> This patch set is only loosely connected (with the exception of the first
> two patches and some ordering dependencies to apply cleanly), and is
> known to apply only to c/s 22467. I''m posting in the hope to get
> eventual review comments in order to then possibly do a re-submission
> once the large set of changes currently pending in the staging tree
> passed regression testing.
> 
> Patch 1/5: make sort() generally available
> Patch 2/5: x86-64: use PC-relative exception table entries
> Patch 3/5: x86: link time .data section adjustments
> Patch 4/5: x86: avoid unlikely taken forward branches
> Patch 5/5: use bool_t for various boolean variables
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

>>> On 22.12.10 at 14:25, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org> wrote:
> Yes, these all look fine to me. Actually I''m not sure whether we
really need
> a general-purpose sort (patch 1/5). But I suppose we could use it in places
> like extable.c, so we might as well have it.
That''s where it gets used (in patch 2).

Jan
> On 22/12/2010 12:04, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com>
wrote:
> 
>> This patch set is only loosely connected (with the exception of the
first
>> two patches and some ordering dependencies to apply cleanly), and is
>> known to apply only to c/s 22467. I''m posting in the hope to
get
>> eventual review comments in order to then possibly do a re-submission
>> once the large set of changes currently pending in the staging tree
>> passed regression testing.
>> 
>> Patch 1/5: make sort() generally available
>> Patch 2/5: x86-64: use PC-relative exception table entries
>> Patch 3/5: x86: link time .data section adjustments
>> Patch 4/5: x86: avoid unlikely taken forward branches
>> Patch 5/5: use bool_t for various boolean variables
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com 
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel 



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

On 22/12/2010 13:29, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote:
>>>> On 22.12.10 at 14:25, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org> wrote:
>> Yes, these all look fine to me. Actually I''m not sure whether
we really need
>> a general-purpose sort (patch 1/5). But I suppose we could use it in
places
>> like extable.c, so we might as well have it.
> 
> That''s where it gets used (in patch 2).
Ah yes. Put that bit in a separate patch.

 -- Keir
> Jan
> 
>> On 22/12/2010 12:04, "Jan Beulich"
<JBeulich@novell.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> This patch set is only loosely connected (with the exception of the
first
>>> two patches and some ordering dependencies to apply cleanly), and
is
>>> known to apply only to c/s 22467. I''m posting in the hope
to get
>>> eventual review comments in order to then possibly do a
re-submission
>>> once the large set of changes currently pending in the staging tree
>>> passed regression testing.
>>> 
>>> Patch 1/5: make sort() generally available
>>> Patch 2/5: x86-64: use PC-relative exception table entries
>>> Patch 3/5: x86: link time .data section adjustments
>>> Patch 4/5: x86: avoid unlikely taken forward branches
>>> Patch 5/5: use bool_t for various boolean variables
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Xen-devel mailing list
>>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> 
> 
> 


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

>>> On 22.12.10 at 14:33, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org> wrote:
> On 22/12/2010 13:29, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com>
wrote:
> 
>>>>> On 22.12.10 at 14:25, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
wrote:
>>> Yes, these all look fine to me. Actually I''m not sure
whether we really need
>>> a general-purpose sort (patch 1/5). But I suppose we could use it
in places
>>> like extable.c, so we might as well have it.
>> 
>> That''s where it gets used (in patch 2).
> 
> Ah yes. Put that bit in a separate patch.
Using the general purpose sort is a requirement for the change
to PC-relative exception table entries. Or do you mean you want
the macro-ization split from the actual layout change?

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

On 22/12/2010 13:49, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote:
>> Ah yes. Put that bit in a separate patch.
> 
> Using the general purpose sort is a requirement for the change
> to PC-relative exception table entries. Or do you mean you want
> the macro-ization split from the actual layout change?
I thought switching sort method was a logically separate change and could go
in a separate patch. If not it doesn''t matter that much.

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel