Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752196AbXJVX4Z (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:56:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751155AbXJVX4Q (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:56:16 -0400 Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:53317 "EHLO mail.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751065AbXJVX4P (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:56:15 -0400 Message-ID: <471D389E.40609@goop.org> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:56:14 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (X11/20070727) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: Al Viro , WANG Cong , Sam Ravnborg , Nix , Jeff Dike , Paolo Giarrusso , user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rob Landley Subject: Re: [uml-devel] User Mode Linux still doesn't build in 2.6.23-final. References: <20071022061245.GG2998@hacking> <87d4v7fy5i.fsf@hades.wkstn.nix> <20071022065202.GI2998@hacking> <20071022065943.GC10864@uranus.ravnborg.org> <20071022074823.GJ2998@hacking> <20071022113600.GA8181@ftp.linux.org.uk> <20071022122504.GL2998@hacking> <20071022124322.GB8181@ftp.linux.org.uk> <20071022124551.GA7438@elte.hu> <471D2ECC.6090209@goop.org> <20071022231927.GA30814@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20071022231927.GA30814@elte.hu> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1253 Lines: 37 Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > >> Ingo Molnar wrote: >> >>> we should kill it there too. >>> >>> the only place where we should _please_ keep those annotations are for >>> functions that get called from assembly code. This makes life immensely >>> easier for -pg (CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACING) kernels. >>> >> Should we re-add them for the function pointers in asm-x86/paravirt.h? >> > > yes, yes, yes. :-) It was a nightmare to sort it out in -rt (and still > is). Do you have a patch to do this already? >> Andi argued we should remove them since x86 is unconditionally regparm >> now anyway - and they're pretty ugly syntactically. >> > > Sure, it doesnt make things prettier, but i didnt see any particular > ugliness. Hm, how can we get gcc to complain about inconsistent use of fastcall? It doesn't generate any warnings if the function and its pointer are inconsistent, presumably because everything is regparm(3) anyway... J - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/