[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4ACA6660.7020607@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:34:24 -0400
From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
CC: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
systemtap <systemtap@...rces.redhat.com>,
DLE <dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tracing/kprobes v2 1/5] tracing/kprobes: Rename special
variables syntax
Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 05:11:05PM -0400, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>>> Hmm, the problem is that %1, %2, etc. is not very self-explainable.
>>>
>>> May be %arg1, %arg2, etc.. But would that sound confusing since we
>>> have % for registers?
>>
>> As I sent right now, how about %argumentN ? it will not conflict with
>> register names...
>>
>
> There are archs that have %arg0 %arg1, ... as register names?
>
> Well, arg(n) looks shorter but I won't personnally mind if
> we eventually chose %argumentN. It's also clear, self-explainable
> and it won't collide.
Hmm, one idea hits me, how about this? :)
- %register
- %%spvars (%%retval, %%arg0)
Thank you,
--
Masami Hiramatsu
Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc.
Software Solutions Division
e-mail: mhiramat@...hat.com
--
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