Re: [PATCH 1/many] PROC macro to annotate functions in assembly files

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 08:38:24PM +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> [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 <heukelum@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> | > Cc: Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> | > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> | 
> | 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

So what prevents us from extending ENTRY/END instead of introducing
another set?
Let us try to extend what we have and not introduce something new.

	Sam
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/