David Mosberger writes: > How about the attached one? It will touch memory more when moving an > element down, but we're talking about exception tables here, and I > don't think module loading time would be affected in any noticable > fashion. Hmmm... Stylistically I much prefer to pick up the new element, move the others up and just drop the new element in where it should go, rather than doing swap, swap, swap down the list. Also, I don't think there is enough code there to be worth the bother of trying to abstract the generic routine so you can plug in different compare and move-element routines. The whole sort routine is only 16 lines of code, after all. Why not just have an ia64-specific version of sort_extable? That's what I thought you would do. Regards, Paul. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo _at_ vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Follow-Ups:
- Re: [patch] 2.6.1-mm5 compile do not use shared extable code foria64David Mosberger
- Re: [patch] 2.6.1-mm5 compile do not use shared extable code foria64David Mosberger
- [patch] 2.6.1-mm5 compile do not use shared extable code for ia64Jes Sorensen
- Re: [patch] 2.6.1-mm5 compile do not use shared extable code foria64Andrew Morton
- Re: [patch] 2.6.1-mm5 compile do not use shared extable code foria64David Mosberger
- Re: [patch] 2.6.1-mm5 compile do not use shared extable code foria64Paul Mackerras
- Re: [patch] 2.6.1-mm5 compile do not use shared extable code foria64David Mosberger
- Prev by Date: Re: PPC KGDB changes and some help?
- Next by Date: [PATCH] Incorrect value for SIGRTMAX, MIPS nonsense removed, timer_gettimefix
- Previous by thread: Re: [patch] 2.6.1-mm5 compile do not use shared extable code for ia64
- Next by thread: Re: [patch] 2.6.1-mm5 compile do not use shared extable code foria64
- Indexes:[Main][Thread]