Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752918AbXJWPNn (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:13:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751916AbXJWPNg (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:13:36 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:58616 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751658AbXJWPNf (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:13:35 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:13:09 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Andi Kleen Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , 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. Message-ID: <20071023151309.GA14998@elte.hu> References: <20071022124551.GA7438@elte.hu> <471D2ECC.6090209@goop.org> <20071022231927.GA30814@elte.hu> <471D389E.40609@goop.org> <20071023084546.GA17007@elte.hu> <20071023131009.GA32298@elte.hu> <20071023142006.GA9961@elte.hu> <20071023144852.GA27956@one.firstfloor.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071023144852.GA27956@one.firstfloor.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.1.7-deb -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1498 Lines: 43 * Andi Kleen wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 04:20:06PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > > >> You should rename it then to "asmcall" or something. > > > > > > > > if then that should be a separate renaming patch. > > > > > > Well you're asking for the ugly hacks for out of tree code. [...] > > > > nice word-bending there. I'm asking for pre-existing annotations to > > survive. > > What I'm objecting to is that you ask for this for your out of tree > code without any justification on why exactly -- -pg should in theory > work with -mregparms. last i checked it didnt work - i'll re-check that. but even taking the latency tracer completely out of the picture, maintaining this information is useful - at least for some time. > It's standard policy to require very good reasons for changes that are > only useful for out of tree code. [...] it's not just for out of tree code - it's to keep the information of the calling convention maintained - we could need it in the future. > Is it just because you didn't want to adapt the tracer for i386 > regparm? [...] uhm, thank you for such accusations and personal attacks :-( How did i deserve that? Ingo - 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/