From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.92] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ik6Yt-0004Qh-V3 for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:19:56 -0700 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.44) id 1Ik6Yt-0004aq-I3 for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:19:55 -0700 Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 01:19:27 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar Message-ID: <20071022231927.GA30814@elte.hu> References: <20071022061245.GG2998@hacking> <87d4v7fy5i.fsf@hades.wkstn.nix> <20071022065202.GI2998@hacking> <20071022065943.GC10864@uranus.ravnborg.org> <20071022074823.GJ2998@hacking> <20071022113600.GA8181@ftp.linux.org.uk> <20071022122504.GL2998@hacking> <20071022124322.GB8181@ftp.linux.org.uk> <20071022124551.GA7438@elte.hu> <471D2ECC.6090209@goop.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <471D2ECC.6090209@goop.org> Subject: Re: [uml-devel] User Mode Linux still doesn't build in 2.6.23-final. List-Id: The user-mode Linux development list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: user-mode-linux-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: user-mode-linux-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Jeff Dike , Paolo Giarrusso , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nix , Rob Landley , Al Viro , WANG Cong , Sam Ravnborg * Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > we should kill it there too. > > > > the only place where we should _please_ keep those annotations are for > > functions that get called from assembly code. This makes life immensely > > easier for -pg (CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACING) kernels. > > Should we re-add them for the function pointers in asm-x86/paravirt.h? yes, yes, yes. :-) It was a nightmare to sort it out in -rt (and still is). It's also good documentation - it pinpoints functions that are called from assembly. > Andi argued we should remove them since x86 is unconditionally regparm > now anyway - and they're pretty ugly syntactically. Sure, it doesnt make things prettier, but i didnt see any particular ugliness. Ingo ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753142AbXJVXUK (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:20:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751491AbXJVXT6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:19:58 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:38729 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751455AbXJVXT6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:19:58 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 01:19:27 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: Al Viro , WANG Cong , Sam Ravnborg , Nix , Jeff Dike , Paolo Giarrusso , user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rob Landley Subject: Re: [uml-devel] User Mode Linux still doesn't build in 2.6.23-final. Message-ID: <20071022231927.GA30814@elte.hu> References: <20071022061245.GG2998@hacking> <87d4v7fy5i.fsf@hades.wkstn.nix> <20071022065202.GI2998@hacking> <20071022065943.GC10864@uranus.ravnborg.org> <20071022074823.GJ2998@hacking> <20071022113600.GA8181@ftp.linux.org.uk> <20071022122504.GL2998@hacking> <20071022124322.GB8181@ftp.linux.org.uk> <20071022124551.GA7438@elte.hu> <471D2ECC.6090209@goop.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <471D2ECC.6090209@goop.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.1.7-deb -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > we should kill it there too. > > > > the only place where we should _please_ keep those annotations are for > > functions that get called from assembly code. This makes life immensely > > easier for -pg (CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACING) kernels. > > Should we re-add them for the function pointers in asm-x86/paravirt.h? yes, yes, yes. :-) It was a nightmare to sort it out in -rt (and still is). It's also good documentation - it pinpoints functions that are called from assembly. > Andi argued we should remove them since x86 is unconditionally regparm > now anyway - and they're pretty ugly syntactically. Sure, it doesnt make things prettier, but i didnt see any particular ugliness. Ingo