[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <492A7F39.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 09:17:29 +0000
From: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@...ell.com>
To: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Alexander van Heukelum" <heukelum@...lshack.com>
Cc: "Andi Kleen" <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"Cyrill Gorcunov" <gorcunov@...il.com>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Glauber Costa" <gcosta@...hat.com>,
"Matt Mackall" <mpm@...enic.com>,
"LKML" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: KPROBE_ENTRY should be paired wth KPROBE_END
>>> Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...lshack.com> 23.11.08 10:15 >>>
>@@ -1282,7 +1282,7 @@ gs_change:
> CFI_ADJUST_CFA_OFFSET -8
> ret
> CFI_ENDPROC
>-ENDPROC(native_load_gs_index)
>+END(native_load_gs_index)
>
> .section __ex_table,"a"
> .align 8
I disagree to this and similar changes in this patch: Why do we need to
get rid of the ENDPROC() here? It's a procedure that's being ended, and
using ENDPROC() is the only (existing) way to mark something as a
procedure in assembly code.
And btw., while described so in the patch comment, this change has nothing
to do with the subject of the patch.
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