[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081123132346.GE1178@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:23:46 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...lshack.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>,
Glauber Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: include ENTRY/END in entry handlers in entry_64.S
* Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...lshack.com> wrote:
> Impact: cleanup of entry_64.S
>
> Except for the order and the place of the functions, this
> patch should not change the generated code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>
>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S | 259 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
> 1 files changed, 109 insertions(+), 150 deletions(-)
applied to tip/x86/irq, thanks Alexander!
> > Something like:
> >
> > PARANOID_ERROR_ENTRY(stack_segment)
>
> I chose to just reuse the existing names, but it's bikeshedding, so
> change it if you like ;)
yeah. But such things, if they pile up long enough, can result in real
problem. entry_64.S is the result of such a degenerative process.
> I now know why I did not hit the bug that was fixed by "x86: split
> out some macro's and move common code to paranoid_exit, fix"...
> *blush* I was doing my real-world testing using an i386-image of
> debian.
heh, that indeed explains :)
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