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    [W:0.021 / U:61.088 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site