Re: [PATCH] x86: clean up after: move entry_64.S register saving out of the macros

[Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@mailshack.com>]

On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 04:04:12PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@mailshack.com> wrote:
> 
> > This add-on patch to x86: move entry_64.S register saving out of the 
> > macros visually cleans up the appearance of the code by introducing 
> > some basic helper macro's. It also adds some cfi annotations which 
> > were missing.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@fastmail.fm>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S |  220 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
> >  1 files changed, 112 insertions(+), 108 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Hello Ingo,
> > 
> > This patch improves the CFI-situation in entry_64.S, but restricted 
> > mostly to the areas touched by "x86: move entry_64.S register saving 
> > out of the macros". I'm sure there will be some small errors 
> > somewhere, but it compiles and runs fine.
> 
> very nice cleanup! This is exactly what should be done. Applied to 
> tip/x86/irq.
> 
> Note, i did a small rename:
> 
>     cfi_pushq  =>  pushq_cfi
>     cfi_popq   =>  popq_cfi
>     cfi_store  =>  movq_cfi
> 
> as the goal is to have the actual source code read mostly as regular 
> assembly code. The fact that the macro is equivalent to a 
> default-annotated pushq/popq/movq instruction is much more important 
> than the fact that it also does CFI annotations.
> 
> Also, while cfi_store is correct as well, the usual x86 assembly term 
> (and instruction used here) is movq.

Now I have a little problem with my next patch... I wanted to
introduce cfi_load. Guess what assembly instruction that maps
to ;).

Greetings,
	Alexander

> Find below how the commit ended up looking like.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	Ingo
> 
> ----------------->
-- 
Alexander van Heukelum