From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 15 November 2019 17:47Mostly that if, for any reason, the build script changes are missing nothing
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 04:51:24PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
From: Shile ZhangThis patch comes after the build script changes, so they'd be in sync.
Sent: 15 November 2019 06:48...
arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c | 8 +++++---How fast is sort() if the table is sorted?
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c
index 332ae6530fa8..280da6fa9922 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c
@@ -273,9 +273,11 @@ void __init unwind_init(void)
return;
}
- /* Sort the .orc_unwind and .orc_unwind_ip tables: */
- sort(__start_orc_unwind_ip, num_entries, sizeof(int), orc_sort_cmp,
- orc_sort_swap);
+ /*
+ * Note, orc_unwind and orc_unwind_ip tables has been sorted in
+ * vmlinux link phase by sorttable tool at build time.
+ * Its ready for binary search now.
+ */
Relying on the kernel sources and build scripts always being in sync seems dangerous.
Probably better to leave the sort in for a release of two.
What would the concern be?
will detect the error - but the results will be very confusing.
If the sort is fast for sorted inputs (some algorithms aren't) then leaving
it in won't take that long.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)