From: "Cyrill Gorcunov" <gorcunov@gmail.com>
To: "Alexander van Heukelum" <heukelum@fastmail.fm>
Cc: "Sam Ravnborg" <sam@ravnborg.org>,
"Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@novell.com>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
"Alexander van Heukelum" <heukelum@mailshack.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/many] PROC macro to annotate functions in assembly files
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:03:25 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aa79d98a0812180403p47c6257r8e48afeff2e9b324@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1229593918.31758.1290707307@webmail.messagingengine.com>
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Alexander van Heukelum
<heukelum@fastmail.fm> wrote:
[...]
>> >
>> > 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
>
> I don't think ENTRY should be used for nested procedures. If the
> author wants to do something like that, he better knew something
> about the assembler anyhow.
Author anyway have to knew something. We can't bring some kind
of lexical machine that eliminate this needing :)
>
>> > - PROC/ENDPROC are to replace old ENTRY/END for procs being called
>> > mostly from C code
>
> Currently there is many different patterns. Some functions use ENTRY
> without END, some use ENTRY/ENDPROC, some use ENDPROC without annotation
> at the start...
Alexander, I was just trying to say Sam about what we're planning to get
at the end of all this procedure. I mean I know there are some issues to
be fixed first.
Fix me if I'm wrong.
>
>> So what prevents us from extending ENTRY/END instead of introducing
>> another set?
>
> ENTRY/END alone is not enough if one wants to be able to distinguish
> between code (functions) and non-executed data.
>
>> Let us try to extend what we have and not introduce something new.
>
> Agreed. I vote to complement the existing ENDPROC annotation with
> the proposed PROC annotation. Let's call that an extension, not
> something new ;). As it stands it is not impossible to go with
> ENTRY/ENDPROC for code and ENTRY/END for data. However, ENTRY
> implies alignment and the prefered alignment for code and data
> might differ.
If ENTRY will be used for data objects it shouldn't contain any kind of
alignment since in general we could have arrays of bytes, words and so on.
>
> Greetings,
> Alexander
>
>> Sam
> --
> Alexander van Heukelum
> heukelum@fastmail.fm
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-12-18 12:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-12-17 9:17 Alexander van Heukelum
2008-12-17 9:17 ` [PATCH 1/many] " Alexander van Heukelum
2008-12-17 9:17 ` [PATCH last/many] x86: checking framework for correct use of ENTRY/PROC Alexander van Heukelum
2008-12-17 11:51 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2008-12-17 12:04 ` Alexander van Heukelum
2008-12-17 14:43 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2008-12-17 17:26 ` [PATCH 1/many] PROC macro to annotate functions in assembly files Sam Ravnborg
2008-12-17 17:38 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2008-12-17 18:00 ` Sam Ravnborg
2008-12-17 18:33 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2008-12-18 9:51 ` Alexander van Heukelum
2008-12-18 10:07 ` Russell King
2008-12-18 11:30 ` Alexander van Heukelum
2008-12-18 10:20 ` Jan Beulich
2008-12-18 12:03 ` Cyrill Gorcunov [this message]
2008-12-18 12:40 ` Alexander van Heukelum
2008-12-18 16:05 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2008-12-18 9:23 ` Alexander van Heukelum
2008-12-18 12:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-12-17 10:53 ` David Howells
2008-12-17 11:12 ` Alexander van Heukelum
2008-12-18 11:44 ` Russell King
2008-12-18 12:35 ` Alexander van Heukelum
2008-12-18 15:53 ` Russell King
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aa79d98a0812180403p47c6257r8e48afeff2e9b324@mail.gmail.com \
--to=gorcunov@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=heukelum@fastmail.fm \
--cc=heukelum@mailshack.com \
--cc=jbeulich@novell.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=sam@ravnborg.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®