From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161016AbWHANhR (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Aug 2006 09:37:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161013AbWHANhQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Aug 2006 09:37:16 -0400 Received: from gwmail.nue.novell.com ([195.135.221.19]:54971 "EHLO emea5-mh.id5.novell.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161016AbWHANhP (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Aug 2006 09:37:15 -0400 Message-Id: <44CF755C.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 7.0.1 Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:38:04 +0200 From: "Jan Beulich" To: "Stas Sergeev" , "Zachary Amsden" Cc: <76306.1226@compuserve.com>, , , , "Linux kernel" Subject: Re: + espfix-code-cleanup.patch added to -mm tree References: <200607300016.k6U0GYu4023664@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> <44CE766D.6000705@vmware.com> <44CF474C.9070800@aknet.ru> In-Reply-To: <44CF474C.9070800@aknet.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>> pushl %eax; \ <---- >>> - CFI_ADJUST_CFA_OFFSET 4; \ >>> + lss (%esp), %esp; >> <---- CFI adjustment here is missing. >Well, someone used that macro in a .fixup section, where the >CFI adjustments do not seem to work. But since I don't know >why this was done (Jan?), I reverted that to my original code and >added the adjustments now. The macro in question is UNWIND_ESPFIX_STACK, which is used in exactly one place (in normal .text). Even more, the macro itself switches to .fixup, so it would be rather odd if it was used in a .fixup section by itself. Note that FIXUP_ESPFIX_STACK doesn't have any annotations, and hence can freely be used in .fixup. >>> FIXUP_ESPFIX_STACK # %eax == %esp >>> - CFI_ADJUST_CFA_OFFSET -20 # the frame has now moved >>> + CFI_ADJUST_CFA_OFFSET -20 >> Is this CFI adjustment still correct? >Hmm, I guess it wasn't correct also before, so I just >left it as is. Should now be fixed. I would think it was correct, but surely annotating these pieces of code wasn't something that anybody but the original author (you) should have done, as it wasn't too difficult to get lost. Jan