Re: [RFC PATCH] Drop some asm from copy_user_64.S

[Ingo Molnar]

* Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 12:31:40PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > So why should an alternatives-CALL, inlined directly into call sites,
> > cost more kernel space?
> 
> Not the alternatives CALL alone but inlining _copy_*_user with all 
> the preparation glue around it would. Basically what we're doing 
> currently.

So I reacted to this comment of yours:

> > > The disadvantage is that we have CALL after CALL [...]

Is the CALL after CALL caused by us calling an alternatives patched 
function? If yes then we probably should not do that: alternatives 
switching should IMHO happen at the highest possible level.

Thanks,

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