[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <471D31B2.6060009@goop.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:26:42 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>, Nix <nix@...eri.org.uk>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
Paolo Giarrusso <p.giarrusso@...il.com>,
user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
Subject: Re: [uml-devel] User Mode Linux still doesn't build in 2.6.23-final.
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
>
>
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>>> we should kill it there too.
>>>
>>> the only place where we should _please_ keep those annotations are for
>>> functions that get called from assembly code. This makes life immensely
>>> easier for -pg (CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACING) kernels.
>>>
>> Should we re-add them for the function pointers in asm-x86/paravirt.h?
>>
>
> yes, yes, yes. :-) It was a nightmare to sort it out in -rt (and still
> is). It's also good documentation - it pinpoints functions that are
> called from assembly.
>
>
>> Andi argued we should remove them since x86 is unconditionally regparm
>> now anyway - and they're pretty ugly syntactically.
>>
>
> Sure, it doesnt make things prettier, but i didnt see any particular
> ugliness.
One thought I had is that "fastcall" doesn't really mean the right
thing. The speed or otherwise of the call is a side-effect, but what we
really mean is something like "regparm". Ie, document the actual
calling convention used, rather than an effect of the calling convention.
I guess "fastcall" has enough history now.
J
-
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