From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Adding support for coverage informations Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:47:24 +0000 Message-ID: <5107B6CC.7040608@citrix.com> References: <1359407799.32148.1.camel@nemesi> <1359457004.12252.103.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <5107C38D02000078000BA5BB@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5107C38D02000078000BA5BB@nat28.tlf.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: George Dunlap , Frediano Ziglio , "Keir (Xen.org)" , Ian Campbell , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 29/01/13 11:41, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 29.01.13 at 11:56, Ian Campbell wrote: >> We might have some checks in the tree to ensure that non-init code >> cannot reference init code by mistake -- maybe that's what broke the >> build for you? > No, (sadly) we don't have such checks in place. > > Jan Linux has such checks. Would it be possible to beg/steal/borrow it in a useful fashion? With regards to the reentrant NMI issue, I was considering introducing __nmi and __mce tags in a similar way to __init. At one level, simply having the tags as noops to the compiler would at least make programmers consider the implication of what they are inserting into the codepaths, but if there is the ability to have compiler checks to verify a base level of sanity, that is even better. ~Andrew > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel