[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1203011209580.923@kaball-desktop>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 12:12:25 +0000
From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
CC: Dave Martin <dave.martin@...aro.org>,
Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>,
Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@...aro.org>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
"linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@...citrix.com>,
"catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-WIP 01/13] xen/arm: use r12 to pass the hypercall number
to the hypervisor
On Thu, 1 Mar 2012, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 10:27:02AM +0000, Dave Martin wrote:
> > So, where there's a compelling reason to inline these things, we can use
> > the existing techniques if we're alert to the risks. But in cases where
> > there isn't a compelling reason, aren't we just inviting fragility
> > unnecessarily?
>
> The practical experience from the kernel suggests that there isn't a
> problem - that's not to say that future versions of gcc won't become
> a problem, and that the compiler guys may refuse to fix it.
>
> I think it's a feature that we should be pressing gcc guys for - it's
> fairly fundamental to any programming which requires interfaces that
> require certain args in certain registers, or receive results in
> certain registers.
>
> The options over this are basically:
> 1. refusing to upgrade to any version of gcc which does not allow
> registers-in-asm
> 2. doing the store-to-memory reload-in-asm thing
> 3. hand-coding veneers for every call to marshall the registers
>
> Each of those has its down sides, but I suspect with (1), it may be
> possible to have enough people applying pressure to the compiler guys
> that they finally see sense on this matter.
I tend to have a very practical approach about this sort of issues, so I
am tempted to go with 1) if you agree.
--
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