[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <44CF84C4.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 16:43:48 +0200
From: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@...ell.com>
To: "Stas Sergeev" <stsp@...et.ru>
Cc: <76306.1226@...puserve.com>, <rohitseth@...gle.com>, <ak@....de>,
<akpm@...l.org>, "Linux kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Zachary Amsden" <zach@...are.com>
Subject: Re: + espfix-code-cleanup.patch added to -mm tree
>>> Well, someone used that macro in a .fixup section, where the
>>> CFI adjustments do not seem to work. But since I don't know
>>> why this was done (Jan?), I reverted that to my original code and
>>> added the adjustments now.
>> The macro in question is UNWIND_ESPFIX_STACK, which is used in
exactly
>No, that was about FIXUP_ESPFIX_STACK in fact.
>
>> Even more, the macro itself switches to .fixup,
>... where it uses FIXUP_ESPFIX_STACK. I haven't done that.
>Someone else added the .fixup section to UNWIND_ESPFIX_STACK,
>and so the FIXUP_ESPFIX_STACK became used in that section.
>I removed that now with my patch, unless someone can tell
>me why it was needed.
That was me, in order to get the unwind annotations right without
complicating the code too much. Again, FIXUP_ESPFIX_STACK doesn't
use any unwind directives so can be used anywhere, including the
.fixup section UNWIND_ESPFIX_STACK switches to.
Jan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists