[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071204222717.GA25974@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 23:27:17 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86: Unify include/asm-x86/linkage_[32|64].h
* Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 22:32 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not sure if the definition of asmlinkage and prevent_tail_call can
> > > be omitted as well and let the linux/linkage.h version get picked up
> > > instead.
> >
> > no, we cannot remove them - asmlinkage is needed for the syscall
> > entry (and other entry code) to work, the and the prevent_tail_call
> > works around a compiler bug. (which might or might not be fixed in
> > latest gcc - but we generally dont remove workarounds unless we are
> > really sure it's fine.)
>
> OK, but if this patch is acceptable, then there is no more places in
> the tree that define the FASTCALL macro, other than the empty default
> in include/linux/linkage.h. So I think a second step would be to
> start to get rid of FASTCALL callers elsewhere in the tree...thoughts?
the removal of FASTCALL is fine: the default (and only) compiler model
for x86 (32-bit) is regparm(3), so the regparm(3) macro is equivalent to
the empty one in linux/linkage.h.
btw., removal of FASTCALL from the tree is worthwile after this: it
should probably be done via the -mm tree, because it's more of a generic
kernel matter than an arch/x86 matter.
Ingo
--
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