Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>>> we should kill it there too.
>>>
>>> the only place where we should _please_ keep those annotations are for
>>> functions that get called from assembly code. This makes life immensely
>>> easier for -pg (CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACING) kernels.
>>>
>> Should we re-add them for the function pointers in asm-x86/paravirt.h?
>>
>
> yes, yes, yes. :-) It was a nightmare to sort it out in -rt (and still
> is). It's also good documentation - it pinpoints functions that are
> called from assembly.
>
>
>> Andi argued we should remove them since x86 is unconditionally regparm
>> now anyway - and they're pretty ugly syntactically.
>>
>
> Sure, it doesnt make things prettier, but i didnt see any particular
> ugliness.
One thought I had is that "fastcall" doesn't really mean the right
thing. The speed or otherwise of the call is a side-effect, but what we
really mean is something like "regparm". Ie, document the actual
calling convention used, rather than an effect of the calling convention.
I guess "fastcall" has enough history now.
J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
