Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 08/23] x86: add multiboot2 protocol support

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>]

On 14/08/15 11:03, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 13.08.15 at 21:22, <daniel.kiper@oracle.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 03:17:48PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 04:29:03PM +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
>>>> @@ -34,6 +57,42 @@ multiboot1_header_start:       /*** MULTIBOOT1 HEADER ****/
>>>>           .long   -(MULTIBOOT_HEADER_MAGIC + MULTIBOOT_HEADER_FLAGS)
>>>>   multiboot1_header_end:
>>>>
>>>> +/*** MULTIBOOT2 HEADER ****/
>>>> +/* Some ideas are taken from grub-2.00/grub-core/tests/boot/kernel-i386.S file. */
>>>> +        .align  MULTIBOOT2_HEADER_ALIGN
>>>> +
>>>> +.Lmultiboot2_header:
>>> How come you use .L? It makes this hidden while the multiboot1 headers
>>> are visible? Makes it a bit harder to see the contents of this under
>>> an debugger.
>> Good point. IIRC, Jan asked about that. I will remove .L if he does not
>> object.
> For this particular one I think it's okay to drop the .L, but generally
> I'd like to see .L used more widely for any auxiliary labels (i.e. only
> "main" labels - function entry points and data objects - should have
> their labels present in the final symbol table).

In general I would agree.

However, the multiboot 1 and 2 headers are special.  They are binary 
data included in the .text section, so having non-local lables makes the 
disassembly easier to read.

~Andrew