Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:50:47 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Martin Hicks <mort@sgi.com>, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
       heukelum@mailshack.com, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: push old stack address on irqstack for unwinder
Message-ID: <20090131005047.GA21022@elte.hu>
References: <20090130165053.GE7872@alcatraz.americas.sgi.com> <49838F39.6060603@zytor.com> <49839CC8.7060502@zytor.com> <20090131003921.GA13709@elte.hu> <49839FB6.1080509@zytor.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <49839FB6.1080509@zytor.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1000
Lines: 35


* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> Would be nice to have an #ifdef-less primitive for this - something like:
>>
>> 	pushq_frame %rbp
>>
>> and a matching:
>>
>> 	popq_frame %rbp
>>
>> for those cases that need it (this one doesnt as we dont pop out of the 
>> stack).
>>
>
> It certainly would if this isn't a singleton, which I think it could 
> possibly be?

yeah. This is pretty much the only non-restored frame we construct so 
indeed it would be a singleton. Perhaps the IST ones are such ones too.

> Otherwise it really should be a part of an entry/exit macro; this is 
> somewhat special in that it sets up a frame pointer as something other 
> than a normal entry/exit sequence.

Sure - your call really.

	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/