mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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®