Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751630AbYLQSde (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:33:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751091AbYLQSdX (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:33:23 -0500 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.158]:57141 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750975AbYLQSdW (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:33:22 -0500 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=HqXNP2ixXXcRIsoqmyMmiHb/DP25H8Gq+ifJAsMCyX1KVdKQsDBK7sjGujSlr25DwU BuoLXLpg0ie/RhWiRfp/ons6f1hSlmc+fhHO5EJ9v4cOJjNX2CijRzM6uroW4Zr9emmH CBCPg1zuOExWI080h9HrzJ9eP7GVxSdvk6S0A= Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:33:18 +0300 From: Cyrill Gorcunov To: Sam Ravnborg Cc: Alexander van Heukelum , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Alexander van Heukelum , Ingo Molnar , LKML , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/many] PROC macro to annotate functions in assembly files Message-ID: <20081217183318.GG8078@localhost> References: <1229505475-10219-1-git-send-email-heukelum@fastmail.fm> <1229505475-10219-2-git-send-email-heukelum@fastmail.fm> <20081217172640.GB5436@uranus.ravnborg.org> <20081217173824.GF8078@localhost> <20081217180023.GA5783@uranus.ravnborg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081217180023.GA5783@uranus.ravnborg.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [Sam Ravnborg - Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 07:00:23PM +0100] ... | > Sam, I think eventually we should get something like this: | > | > - KPROBE will be eliminated and explicit section descriptions | > are to be used | > - ENTRY could be used / or renamed for something more descriptive | > and being used aligned jmp targets or in case of procs with | > shared body | > - PROC/ENDPROC are to replace old ENTRY/END for procs being called | > mostly from C code | | So what prevents us from extending ENTRY/END instead of introducing | another set? | Let us try to extend what we have and not introduce something new. | | Sam | It could disable us to make such a conversion step-by-step I think. Of course it would be better to just extend ENTRY/END (since already there) and we could even restrict it to X86 only at the beginning but even then we have to check all ENTRY/END that they are used properly (ie like a procedure markers having @function attribute). Not sure what would be better. And btw ENDPROC is more descriptive then plain END :) - 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/