[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <492AECC2.50202@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:04:50 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...lshack.com>
CC: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC -tip] x86: introduce ENTRY(KPROBE)_X86 assembly helpers
to catch unbalanced declaration
Alexander van Heukelum wrote:
>
> The problem is that ENTRY(interrupt) is done in init.rodata, and
> ENTRY(irq_entries_start) is done in .text. So inside the .S-file,
> they are nested, but in the .o-file they are separate. Instead of
> removing ENTRY(irq_entries_start), I think we should just expand to:
>
> .section .init.rodata,"a"
> .p2align 5
> .global interrupt
> interrupt:
>
> and
>
> size interrupt, .-interrupt
>
> But the only importance I can think of is that this keeps both
> the "interrupt" array and irq_entries_start visible in debugging
> information.
>
> Alternatively, we could probably do away with the interrupt
> array entirely. We _know_ how the irq stubs are structured and
> irq_entries_start is in principle enough information to reconstruct
> all information in interrupt.
>
I'd rather not get rid of the interrupt array. But more fundamentally,
interrupt is a data symbol, not an entry point.
-hpa
--
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