DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
         :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
        b=bpSOI/2lM+r0tNnhLszk+Hx5cAJ/G932Qlvka6b8Gf6uGlHhfLPxJo9sWO8z/cBIYc
         UyJuMCbbtXNHCVK1vjulH4gzKjpI0cm4ryROueYNxha13BMD91/Ghp3Ctc2aK0UbkCp3
         JjXrrfL7I3byayQtviTwRD8CfArUjdopV7QDc=
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 21:57:26 +0300
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>,
       Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@mailshack.com>,
       "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC -tip] x86: introduce ENTRY(KPROBE)_X86  assembly helpers
	to catch unbalanced declaration
Message-ID: <20081123185726.GL12710@localhost>
References: <20081123165711.GA12710@localhost> <20081123175125.GA32472@uranus.ravnborg.org> <20081123175846.GF12710@localhost> <20081123181248.GA338@uranus.ravnborg.org> <20081123182103.GH12710@localhost> <20081123185417.GA21106@elte.hu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20081123185417.GA21106@elte.hu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1875
Lines: 47

[Ingo Molnar - Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 07:54:17PM +0100]
| 
| * Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> wrote:
| 
| > [Sam Ravnborg - Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 07:12:48PM +0100]
| > ...
| > | > 
| > | > I don't have -next tree on my laptop, neither cross-compile tools but
| > | > if someone could test it -- it would be great. But I used gas macros
| > | > here -- i doubt other architectures has the same syntax. At least
| > | > PDP-11 would beat us with ';' symbol :)
| > | 
| > | If we include this in any of the 100+ trees that Stephen sucks
| > | into -next we will get it tried out.
| > | 
| > | Ingo has so and so does others so getting it into -next
| > | is rather easy. Then the automated builds will tell of if
| > | it fails on any of the toolchains used there.
| > | 
| > | 	Sam
| > | 
| > 
| > Sam, to be clear, you mean that I could put this stuff into general 
| > include/linux/linkage.h with general names as ENTRY/END and the same 
| > for KPROBE so it could be merged into -next tree for testing? If 
| > yes, that as I said there will be a lot of errors so build will 
| > stuck in a moment 'cause of unbalanced ENTRY. Not sure if it's a 
| > good idea :)
| 
| neither do i think it's a particularly good idea. Lets first prototype 
| it on x86, see how it works out in practice, and then see whether it 
| can be generic. Then it can just be lifted into the generic linkage.h 
| separately, and we can then see whether it causes new problems. 
| 
| 	Ingo
| 

So be it :) Btw I think Alexander is right -- better to use .warning
instead of .error (and without .abort) even on x86. Could you update
Ingo?

		- Cyrill -
--
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/