Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753136AbYKXKfU (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Nov 2008 05:35:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751883AbYKXKfF (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Nov 2008 05:35:05 -0500 Received: from vpn.id2.novell.com ([195.33.99.129]:52958 "EHLO vpn.id2.novell.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751643AbYKXKfE convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Nov 2008 05:35:04 -0500 Message-Id: <492A9199.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 8.0.0 Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:35:53 +0000 From: "Jan Beulich" To: "Alexander van Heukelum" Cc: "Ingo Molnar" , "Andi Kleen" , "Cyrill Gorcunov" , "Thomas Gleixner" , "Glauber Costa" , "Matt Mackall" , "LKML" , "Nick Piggin" , "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: KPROBE_ENTRY should be paired wth KPROBE_END References: <20081120150412.GC13550@elte.hu> <20081120152601.GA3953@mailshack.com> <20081120153954.GA22511@elte.hu> <20081121154155.GA12999@mailshack.com> <20081121154318.GA13014@mailshack.com> <20081121154428.GB13014@mailshack.com> <20081121160629.GA24839@elte.hu> <20081123090828.GA31490@mailshack.com> <20081123091532.GA31515@mailshack.com> <492A7F39.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> <20081124102600.GA8335@mailshack.com> In-Reply-To: <20081124102600.GA8335@mailshack.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1051 Lines: 23 >Right. I thought of END and ENDPROC as equivalent, so I added the change >to this patch as a small cleanup only. But if we want this .type >annotation, what about KPROBE_END? should it include one there too? Yes, it always bothered me that there's no KPROBE_ENDPROC() (or alternatively, as this being code is implied by the macro, it didn't do the annotation by default). >I'm getting a feeling we would be better off removing KPROBE_ENTRY and >KPROBE_END if favour of explicitly changing sections in the .S files? >And using the ENDPROC annotation for all procedures? It got explicitly added a while back, so there must have been a reason to *not* do the section adjustments explicitly. And given the current discussion I'd also assume that more hiding of code in macros is the preferred route. Jan -- 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/