From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julien Grall Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] xmalloc: add support for checking the pool integrity Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 12:46:59 +0000 Message-ID: <54917B43.5060903@linaro.org> References: <1418758405-32200-1-git-send-email-mdontu@bitdefender.com> <549095E3.30202@citrix.com> <5490BAE4.5070108@linaro.org> <5490BFBD.7010809@citrix.com> <5490C22F.4020505@linaro.org> <549156C1.5000708@citrix.com> <549159D4.2040304@linaro.org> <54916BB40200007800050317@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <54916BB40200007800050317@mail.emea.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: tim@xen.org, keir@xen.org, ian.campbell@citrix.com, Andrew Cooper , mdontu@bitdefender.com, ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Hi Jan, On 17/12/14 10:40, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 17.12.14 at 11:24, wrote: >> On 17/12/2014 10:11, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> On 16/12/14 23:37, Julien Grall wrote: >>> Introducing a new bugframe is precicely what I meant by "this doesn't >>> look hard". x86 currently has one more bugframe than arm, being >>> BUGFRAME_run_fn. >> >> And how do you pass the pointer of the function? As I said, ARM lacks of >> %c because of compiler issue. > > First of all can you explain what compiler issue there is? Both > {arm,aarch64}_print_operand() handle 'c' (but of course I can't > tell whether correctly). This has been added recently on aarch64 (late 2013) and there was an outstanding bug on some version of GCC for arm (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48637) FYI, the BUG support has been borrowed from Linux. > And then can't you possibly find ways to deal with the # prefix > added when not using 'c'? For the section name (if you need the > section split in the first place) I would think a # should be fine, > and the uses in expressions can surely be worked around by > interposing an assembler macro (even if that macro may end up > looking quite ugly). We already have a working solution without BUGFRAME_run_fn. See the implementation in xen/include/asm-arm.h. I don't plan to work on modifying this code. But I would be happy if someone post a patch to support BUGFRAME_run_fn. Regards, -- Julien Grall