From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH -rt] CONFIG_PARAVIRT and CONFIG_MCOUNT don't play well together Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:32:32 +0200 Message-ID: <20070622153232.GA31848@elte.hu> References: <20070622080634.GP3723@sequoia.sous-sol.org> <20070622083330.GB19382@elte.hu> <20070622152915.GQ3723@sequoia.sous-sol.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Steven Rostedt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org To: Chris Wright Return-path: Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:38034 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757142AbXFVPcq (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:32:46 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070622152915.GQ3723@sequoia.sous-sol.org> Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-rt-users.vger.kernel.org * Chris Wright wrote: > > thanks! I ran into this before and asked for the fastcalls to not be > > removed from upstream paravirt.c but to no avail it seems. It does > > no harm to anyone to keep the 'fastcall' declarations and > > definitions for places where _actual assembly code_ depends on the > > calling convention. Could someone please send this upstream-wards > > too? > > Yes, I agree, it's actually documenting the subtlety of the calling > convention, not just noise in the source. The upstream patch is > different, I'll sort one out. great! Ingo