On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 16:27 -0500, Jason Baron wrote:
quoted text
> Hi,
> 
> A few jump label patches that I want considered for 2.6.37. Patches are against
> the latest -tip tree.

I can see patch 2 and 3 going to 2.6.37, but patch 1 seems a bit too
big. If it is not a true fix for anything and is just a design change,
then lets hold off till 2.6.38.


quoted text
> 
> The first one, which adds 'state' to the jump label mechanism is the most
> important. Essentially, it ensures that if jump labels are enabled/disabled in
> the core kernel but the actual call sites are in modules, we properly honor the
> state of the jump label. This also works for jump labels which may be defined in
> one module but made use of in another module.

What happens if we don't do this. What does "honoring" the state
actually mean?


quoted text
> 
> There has been some discussion about using the 'key' variable to store the
> enabled/disabled state for each jump label. However, I think a better design
> will be to use the 'key' variable to store a pointer to the appropriate jump
> label tables. In this way, we can enable/disable jump labels, without the
> hashing that I'm currently doing. However, I didn't want to propose these more
> invasive changes until 2.6.38. 

I'm thinking even patch 1 is too invasive. Unless it crashes or truly
breaks something without the change.

Patch 2 is small and reasonable, and patch 3 is just documentation
changes. Both OK for an -rc update.

-- Steve


--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/