Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756024Ab3HFQ04 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Aug 2013 12:26:56 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122]:27793 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754939Ab3HFQ0y (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Aug 2013 12:26:54 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=KJ7Y/S5o c=1 sm=0 a=Sro2XwOs0tJUSHxCKfOySw==:17 a=Drc5e87SC40A:10 a=pFOAptgLnqcA:10 a=5SG0PmZfjMsA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=meVymXHHAAAA:8 a=KGjhK52YXX0A:10 a=pvQ05lsfB1wA:10 a=W3ig_ibawsWDzsg6NO8A:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=Sro2XwOs0tJUSHxCKfOySw==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Authenticated-User: X-Originating-IP: 67.255.60.225 Message-ID: <1375806413.25420.36.camel@gandalf.local.home> Subject: Re: [RFC] gcc feature request: Moving blocks into sections From: Steven Rostedt To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers , Linus Torvalds , LKML , gcc , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , David Daney , Behan Webster , Peter Zijlstra , Herbert Xu Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 12:26:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: <52012229.2020707@linux.intel.com> References: <1375725328.22073.101.camel@gandalf.local.home> <51FFEC56.6040206@linux.intel.com> <1375727010.22073.110.camel@gandalf.local.home> <51FFEEEC.5060902@linux.intel.com> <1375728583.22073.118.camel@gandalf.local.home> <51FFF430.1060701@linux.intel.com> <20130805195446.GA22359@Krystal> <20130805212855.GA23044@Krystal> <52001C92.3070209@linux.intel.com> <1375805711.25420.34.camel@gandalf.local.home> <52012229.2020707@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4-3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 913 Lines: 26 On Tue, 2013-08-06 at 09:19 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 08/06/2013 09:15 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 14:43 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > > >> For unconditional jmp that should be pretty safe barring any fundamental > >> changes to the instruction set, in which case we can enable it as > >> needed, but for extra robustness it probably should skip prefix bytes. > > > > Would the assembler add prefix bytes to: > > > > jmp 1f > > > > No, but if we ever end up doing MPX in the kernel, for example, we would > have to put an MPX prefix on the jmp. Well then we just have to update the rest of the jump label code :-) -- Steve -- 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/