From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752039AbbEDVOy (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2015 17:14:54 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54386 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751384AbbEDVOp (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2015 17:14:45 -0400 Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 16:14:43 -0500 From: Josh Poimboeuf To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Michal Marek , Peter Zijlstra , x86@kernel.org, live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86, stackvalidate: Add asm frame pointer setup macros Message-ID: <20150504211443.GC12638@treble.redhat.com> References: <5547D7B1.8070703@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5547D7B1.8070703@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1-rc1 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 01:33:53PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 05/04/2015 01:23 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > + __ASM_SIZE(push, _cfi) %_ASM_BP > > + __ASM_SIZE(pop, _cfi) %_ASM_BP > > This seems ridiculous. push/pop only come in one size per > architecture(*). Can we make it so that just push_cfi and pop_cfi do > the right things? Yeah, the separated pushq_cfi and pushl_cfi macros aren't really necessary. I'm guessing they were made separate in order to have a consistent naming interface with movq_cfi and movl_cfi. I'm not sure about which way is better. But I can replace them with new push_cfi and pop_cfi macros if you like. -- Josh