[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090428181114.GB2030@Krystal>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:11:14 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86: cleanup alternative.h
* H. Peter Anvin (hpa@...or.com) wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > Please try to align both the continuation backslashes and the
> > comments vertically. Something like:
> >
> >> +#define ALTERNATIVE(oldinstr, newinstr, feature) \
> >> + \
> >> + "661:\n\t" oldinstr "\n662:\n" \
> >> + ".section .altinstructions,\"a\"\n" \
> >> + _ASM_ALIGN "\n" \
> >> + _ASM_PTR "661b\n" /* label */ \
> >> + _ASM_PTR "663f\n" /* new instruction */ \
> >> + " .byte " __stringify(feature) "\n" /* feature bit */ \
> >> + " .byte 662b-661b\n" /* sourcelen */ \
> >> + " .byte 664f-663f\n" /* replacementlen */ \
> >
> > ... should do the trick. (also note the extra line after the #define)
> >
>
> This formatting seems a bit odd; _ASM_ALIGN, _ASM_PTR, and .section are
> functionally equivalent to the opcode field, as is .byte, so the shift
> in indentation for the .byte lines seems odd at best.
>
OK, I'll repost with corrected indentation. I tried to follow the
original style as closely as possible, but indeed a cleanup is needed
here.
Mathieu
> -hpa
>
> --
> H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
> I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
>
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
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