lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 1/9] kernel: add support for patchable function pointers
From
Date


> On 5 Oct 2018, at 20:28, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Andy,
>
>> On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 7:44 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
>> I *think* the only change to Zinc per se would be that the calls like
>> chacha20_simd() would be static calls or patchable functions or
>> whatever we want to call them. And there could be a debugfs to
>> override the default selection.
>
> Yea, right, exactly. It turns out this is really easy to do with the
> way it's structured now. I'd actually experimented considerably with
> using the static keys a while back, but couldn't find any performance
> difference on any platform at all (four ARM microarchitectures, three
> MIPS, various random intel, an old powerpc), so went with the simplest
> solution. But we can certainly play with more elaborate patching
> mechanisms later on and see how those turn out. Also, even with the
> simple bools as we have now, it's quite easy to make all the
> parameters toggle-able.
>
>> Ard, I don't think that sticking this in udev rules makes sense. The
>> kernel has bascially complete information as to what the right choice
>> is, and that will change over time as the implementation gets tuned,
>> and the udev rules will never get updated in sync.
>
> Yes, I agree with this.
>
>

I am not referring to udev rules. I just mean the current way that udev autoloads modules based on CPU features.
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-05 21:13    [W:0.874 / U:0.204 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site