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 1Ik6fT-000539-O3 for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:26:44 -0700 Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164] helo=mail.goop.org) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.44) id 1Ik6fT-0006t3-BS for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:26:43 -0700 Message-ID: <471D31B2.6060009@goop.org> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:26:42 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge MIME-Version: 1.0 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> <20071022231927.GA30814@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20071022231927.GA30814@elte.hu> 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: Ingo Molnar 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 Ingo Molnar wrote: > * 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. One thought I had is that "fastcall" doesn't really mean the right thing. The speed or otherwise of the call is a side-effect, but what we really mean is something like "regparm". Ie, document the actual calling convention used, rather than an effect of the calling convention. I guess "fastcall" has enough history now. J ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 S1752669AbXJVX0v (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:26:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751541AbXJVX0n (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:26:43 -0400 Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:50456 "EHLO mail.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750715AbXJVX0m (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:26:42 -0400 Message-ID: <471D31B2.6060009@goop.org> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:26:42 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (X11/20070727) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar 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. 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> <20071022231927.GA30814@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20071022231927.GA30814@elte.hu> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ingo Molnar wrote: > * 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. One thought I had is that "fastcall" doesn't really mean the right thing. The speed or otherwise of the call is a side-effect, but what we really mean is something like "regparm". Ie, document the actual calling convention used, rather than an effect of the calling convention. I guess "fastcall" has enough history now. J