On Sun, 2018-01-14 at 21:52 +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 9:34 PM, David Woodhouse <dw...@infradead.org> wrote: > > But sure, right now it isn't that might of a difference for me; my > > implementation has changed since I made that reqeust. I have no > > fundamental technical objection to the bare 'ax' naming. We can live > > with either. > > > > It's just that we've been asking for an agreement on the basics (the > > command line we use, and the thunk names) for some days now, and this > > is the first time we've had this discussion, and Linus has just taken > > the patches. > > > > That's still fine. I know we get no sympathy, and we *can* change the > > Linux kernel between -rc8 and -final if we must, and change the Xen > > patches too. I'd just rather not. > Well, you did say that these are strange times ;) > > From the user perspective, it would be more convenient to use the > thunk names that are the same for 32bit and 64bit targets. If we > ignore this fact, the difference is only a couple of lines in the > compiler source which we also can live with. But please discuss my > proposal also in the kernel community, and weight the benefits and > drawbacks of each approach before the final decision. > > Please pass the final decision to gcc community, and we'll implement it.
+Linus, Thomas. Review on the GCC patches has led to a request that the thunk symbols be changed from e.g. __x86_indirect_thunk_rax to __x86_indirect_thunk_ax without the 'r'. If we're going to change the thunk names, it's best to do it *right* now before the 4.15-rc8 release. I genuinely don't care at this point what the thunk names are. It's just that Linus is probably preparing the -rc8 release as we speak, and I'd want to do a new compiler build and set of tests if we make the change. For that reason alone, I'm inclined to answer that we should leave them as they are.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
