On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 05:27:57PM +0000, Charles M. Hannum wrote:
> It seems to me that the ras_lookup() calling convention would be slightly
> more efficient here if we just returned the old PC when there was no RAS.
> This would require a different entry point for single-step handling, but
> that could also be more efficient, since it could return the end of the RAS
> and not have to search for it with repeated calls (cf. mips/trap.c).

I did notice that - saves a test and branch at the cost of a write
(to memory that is probably dirty in the cpu cache already).

I would also have put multiple ras {start,end} pais into a single
structure, with care you can avoid the need to take the lock in
the fault/isr (or whatever) handler.

	David

-- 
David Laight: david@l8s.co.uk