lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86 (Linux Tiny): configure out support for some processors
From
Date

On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 16:54 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Matt Mackall wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 15:01 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> Matt Mackall wrote:
> >>> Best would be to have no ifdefs and do it all with linker magic, of
> >>> course. But that's trickier.
> >>>
> >> I concur with this, definitely.
> >
> > Ok, so let's come up with a plan. We can:
> >
> > a) use weak symbols, ala cond_syscall
> > b) use a special section
> > c) use early_init code (is it early enough?)
> > c) have some sort of registration list
> >
> > Having a generic cond_call of some sort might be nice for this sort of
> > thing.
> >
>
> c) is out, because this has to be executed after the early generic code
> and before the late generic code.
>
> b) would be my first choice, and yes, it would be a good thing to have a
> generalized mechanism for this. For the registrant, it's pretty easy:
> just add a macro that adds a pointer to a named section. We then need a
> way to get the base address and length of each such section in order to
> be able to execute each function in sequence.

I like the idea of making a generalized hook section. But this is a bit
burdensome for Michael's little patch (unless you have time to whip
something up) so I think we should probably explore it separately.

--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-02-12 02:23    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site