Re: [uml-devel] User Mode Linux still doesn't build in 2.6.23-final.

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
> >
> >   
> >>>> You should rename it then to "asmcall" or something.
> >>>>         
> >>> if then that should be a separate renaming patch.
> >>>       
> >> Well you're asking for the ugly hacks for out of tree code.  [...]
> >>     
> >
> > nice word-bending there. I'm asking for pre-existing annotations to 
> > survive. It hurts you _nothing_ and it was a world of pain for us to 
> > recover those lost annotations. Anyway, if Jeremy does not object to the 
> > patch
> 
> I don't have any objections to the idea of the patch, but I'm still 
> concerned about the practical aspects of it.  Maintaining these kinds 
> of annotations is hard/fragile/etc when the compiler doesn't warn when 
> you get it wrong, and only a very specific use-case will reveal the 
> problem (and do so in a fairly obscure way).

it wont be any different from the situation before - we had no such 
warnings there either. Anyway, this shouldnt really bother you as at the 
moment it's only used for -rt. The issue is to keep something we had 
before (but which was stupidly/carelessly removed). If it breaks we'll 
fix it up.

> > we'll push it in and then rename fastcall to asmcall. Much ado about 
> > nothing.
> 
> Hm, "asmcall" is confusingly close to "asmlinkage" - and they have 
> exactly the same intent (can be called from asm), but with exactly the 
> opposite effect.  How about something which actually says what we 
> mean. How about just "regparm"?

yeah, regparm is fine.

	Ingo