Re: [PATCH 2 of 3] memcpy32 for x86_64

["Bryan O'Sullivan" <bos@pathscale.com>]

On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 22:22 -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:

> It's better to do an include here. Duplicating prototypes in .c files
> is frowned upon (despite the fact that it's already done here).

Yeah.  I'm not thrilled about the existing style of that file, but I
don't want to weed-whack it as I go.  That turns a small patch into a
case of mission creep.

> We've been steadily moving towards grouping EXPORTs with function
> definitions. Do *_ksyms.c exist solely to provide exports for
> functions defined in assembly at this point? If so, perhaps we ought
> to come up with a suitable export macro for asm files.

That might make sense, but it's also beyond the scope of what I'm trying
to do.

> Any reason this needs its own .S file?

Not really.

>  One wonders if the
> 
>         .p2align 4
> 
> in memcpy.S is appropriate here too.

It's not clear to me that it makes any difference either way.  Both
routines obviously work :-)  Perhaps Andi can indicate his opinion.

	<b