linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/many] PROC macro to annotate functions in assembly files

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:20:16 +0000
From:	"Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@...ell.com>
To:	"Alexander van Heukelum" <heukelum@...tmail.fm>,
	"Sam Ravnborg" <sam@...nborg.org>
Cc:	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Cyrill Gorcunov" <gorcunov@...il.com>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Alexander van Heukelum" <heukelum@...lshack.com>,
	<linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, "LKML" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/many] PROC macro to annotate functions in
	 assembly files

>>> "Alexander van Heukelum" <heukelum@...tmail.fm> 18.12.08 10:51 >>>
>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

Not really: At least on ia64 these cannot be mixed (and there as well as
any other architectures that may have such requirements) replacing
ENTRY() with PROC() and END() with ENDPROC() will likely be necessary.

>implies alignment and the prefered alignment for code and data
>might differ.

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/