From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752346AbcAFRsg (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jan 2016 12:48:36 -0500 Received: from mail-ig0-f178.google.com ([209.85.213.178]:33105 "EHLO mail-ig0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752172AbcAFRsc (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jan 2016 12:48:32 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160106173515.GA25980@agluck-desk.sc.intel.com> References: <20160106123346.GC19507@pd.tnic> <20160106173515.GA25980@agluck-desk.sc.intel.com> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 09:48:31 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 1kfoCQN8Dwv1udFneZQ2A55CDfA Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] x86: Add classes to exception tables From: Linus Torvalds To: "Luck, Tony" Cc: Borislav Petkov , Peter Anvin , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , Andy Lutomirski , Dan Williams , elliott@hpe.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-mm , "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" , "the arch/x86 maintainers" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Luck, Tony wrote: > > Linus, Peter, Ingo, Thomas: Can we head this direction? The code is cleaner > and more flexible. Or should we stick with Andy's clever way to squeeze a > couple of "class" bits into the fixup field of the exception table? I'd rather not be clever in order to save just a tiny amount of space in the exception table, which isn't really criticial for anybody. So I think Borislav's patch has the advantage of being pretty straightforward and allowing arbitrary fixups, in case we end up having localized special cases.. Linus