From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cyrill Gorcunov Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/many] PROC macro to annotate functions in assembly files Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:38:24 +0300 Message-ID: <20081217173824.GF8078@localhost> References: <1229505475-10219-1-git-send-email-heukelum@fastmail.fm> <1229505475-10219-2-git-send-email-heukelum@fastmail.fm> <20081217172640.GB5436@uranus.ravnborg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081217172640.GB5436@uranus.ravnborg.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Sam Ravnborg Cc: Alexander van Heukelum , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Alexander van Heukelum , Ingo Molnar , LKML , Andrew Morton List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org [Sam Ravnborg - Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 06:26:40PM +0100] | On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:17:54AM +0100, Alexander van Heukelum wrote: | > Introduce the PROC macro in the generic header file | > include/linux/linkage.h to annotate functions in assembly | > files. This is a first step to fully annotate functions | > (procedures) in .S-files. The PROC macro complements the | > already existing and being used ENDPROC macro. The generic | > implementation of PROC is exactly the same as ENTRY. | > | > The goal is to annotate functions, at least those called | > from C code, with PROC at the beginning and ENDPROC at the | > end. This is for the benefit of debugging and tracing. It | > will also allow to introduce a framework to check for | > nesting problems and missing annotations in a later stage | > by overriding ENTRY/END and PROC/ENDPROC in architecture- | > specific code, after the annotation errors have been fixed. | > | > Signed-off-by: Alexander van Heukelum | > Cc: Sam Ravnborg | > Cc: Andrew Morton | | I understand where you are coming from with these. | But what I see now is: | | ENTRY/END | PROC/ENDPROC | KPROBE_ENTRY/KPROBE_END | | And it is not obvious for me reading the comment when I should | expect which one to be used. | | Could we try to keep it down to two variants? | And then document when to use which one. | | Sam | Sam, I think eventually we should get something like this: - KPROBE will be eliminated and explicit section descriptions are to be used - ENTRY could be used / or renamed for something more descriptive and being used aligned jmp targets or in case of procs with shared body - PROC/ENDPROC are to replace old ENTRY/END for procs being called mostly from C code Did I miss something? Does it sound like a good/bad plan? - Cyrill - From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.156]:32878 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751229AbYLQRi1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:38:27 -0500 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 19so2326fgg.17 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:38:25 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:38:24 +0300 From: Cyrill Gorcunov Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/many] PROC macro to annotate functions in assembly files Message-ID: <20081217173824.GF8078@localhost> References: <1229505475-10219-1-git-send-email-heukelum@fastmail.fm> <1229505475-10219-2-git-send-email-heukelum@fastmail.fm> <20081217172640.GB5436@uranus.ravnborg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081217172640.GB5436@uranus.ravnborg.org> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Sam Ravnborg Cc: Alexander van Heukelum , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Alexander van Heukelum , Ingo Molnar , LKML , Andrew Morton Message-ID: <20081217173824.ztbhSACoFUi0sJXkDXCQ_LwRM8NHiGujw-CERrN9_Sw@z> [Sam Ravnborg - Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 06:26:40PM +0100] | On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:17:54AM +0100, Alexander van Heukelum wrote: | > Introduce the PROC macro in the generic header file | > include/linux/linkage.h to annotate functions in assembly | > files. This is a first step to fully annotate functions | > (procedures) in .S-files. The PROC macro complements the | > already existing and being used ENDPROC macro. The generic | > implementation of PROC is exactly the same as ENTRY. | > | > The goal is to annotate functions, at least those called | > from C code, with PROC at the beginning and ENDPROC at the | > end. This is for the benefit of debugging and tracing. It | > will also allow to introduce a framework to check for | > nesting problems and missing annotations in a later stage | > by overriding ENTRY/END and PROC/ENDPROC in architecture- | > specific code, after the annotation errors have been fixed. | > | > Signed-off-by: Alexander van Heukelum | > Cc: Sam Ravnborg | > Cc: Andrew Morton | | I understand where you are coming from with these. | But what I see now is: | | ENTRY/END | PROC/ENDPROC | KPROBE_ENTRY/KPROBE_END | | And it is not obvious for me reading the comment when I should | expect which one to be used. | | Could we try to keep it down to two variants? | And then document when to use which one. | | Sam | Sam, I think eventually we should get something like this: - KPROBE will be eliminated and explicit section descriptions are to be used - ENTRY could be used / or renamed for something more descriptive and being used aligned jmp targets or in case of procs with shared body - PROC/ENDPROC are to replace old ENTRY/END for procs being called mostly from C code Did I miss something? Does it sound like a good/bad plan? - Cyrill -