[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081218100747.GA10593@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:07:47 +0000
From: Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
To: Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>
Cc: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...lshack.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/many] PROC macro to annotate functions in assembly files
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:51:58AM +0100, Alexander van Heukelum wrote:
> Agreed. I vote to complement the existing ENDPROC annotation with
> the proposed PROC annotation. Let's call that an extension, not
> something new ;). As it stands it is not impossible to go with
> ENTRY/ENDPROC for code and ENTRY/END for data. However, ENTRY
> implies alignment and the prefered alignment for code and data
> might differ.
Have you looked at the number of ENTRY uses for code vs for data?
If all you're after is separating the two uses, then it might be a
smaller patch to change the ENTRY use for data rather than changing
all the ENTRY uses for code.
There are 589 uses of ENTRY in arch/arm/*/*.S. Of those about 50
aren't called code.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
--
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