On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 10:05:34PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 10:01:37PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > There are indeed a few KB gain in code size but that's probably coming
> > from the exception table since otherwise you just replace a bl with
> > ldrt. I
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 10:01:37PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> There are indeed a few KB gain in code size but that's probably coming
> from the exception table since otherwise you just replace a bl with
> ldrt. It depends on what the compiler does as well, the arm code has
> some carefully cho
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 08:13:12PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 02:49:54PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > It's fairly unusual to have out of line get_user/put_user functions.
> > What is the reason for this, other than copying from ARM?
>
> Actually, we never u
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 02:49:54PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> It's fairly unusual to have out of line get_user/put_user functions.
> What is the reason for this, other than copying from ARM?
Actually, we never used to out of line on ARM, and then I experimented,
and found there was a net benefi
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 03:49:54PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 August 2012, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>
> > +/*
> > + * Single-value transfer routines. They automatically use the right
> > + * size if we just have the right pointer type. Note that the functions
> > + * which read fr
On Tuesday 14 August 2012, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> +/*
> + * Single-value transfer routines. They automatically use the right
> + * size if we just have the right pointer type. Note that the functions
> + * which read from user space (*get_*) need to take care not to leak
> + * kernel data even
6 matches
Mail list logo
