Re: [PATCH] x86-64: fix unwind info for incomplete frames

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 28.05.15 at 11:01, <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> * Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> --- 4.1-rc5/arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S
>> +++ 4.1-rc5-x86_64-unwind-info/arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S
>> @@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ ENDPROC(native_usergs_sysret64)
>>  /*
>>   * frame that enables passing a complete pt_regs to a C function.
>>   */
>> -	.macro DEFAULT_FRAME start=1 offset=0
>> +	.macro DEFAULT_FRAME start=1 offset=0 extra=1
>>  	XCPT_FRAME \start, ORIG_RAX+\offset
>>  	CFI_REL_OFFSET rdi, RDI+\offset
>>  	CFI_REL_OFFSET rsi, RSI+\offset
>> @@ -159,12 +159,14 @@ ENDPROC(native_usergs_sysret64)
>>  	CFI_REL_OFFSET r9, R9+\offset
>>  	CFI_REL_OFFSET r10, R10+\offset
>>  	CFI_REL_OFFSET r11, R11+\offset
>> +	.if \extra
>>  	CFI_REL_OFFSET rbx, RBX+\offset
>>  	CFI_REL_OFFSET rbp, RBP+\offset
>>  	CFI_REL_OFFSET r12, R12+\offset
>>  	CFI_REL_OFFSET r13, R13+\offset
>>  	CFI_REL_OFFSET r14, R14+\offset
>>  	CFI_REL_OFFSET r15, R15+\offset
>> +	.endif
>>  	.endm
> 
> I have a couple of code cleanliness complaints:
> 
>  - So 'extra' isn't very expressive, I'd name it 'full' to signal a full frame, 
>    and full=0 denotes

I can certainly do this; as easy as "sed s/extra/full/g" on the patch -
perhaps you could even do this while committing?

>  - So I had to go into the source and double check various nested macros to see 
>    that DEFAULT_FRAME is only defining debug information, it's not emitting any 
>    actual code. This should have been glaringly obvious from the macro name!

CFI_DEFAULT_FRAME? Anyway - clearly not in this patch.

>  - So I hate these 'default values' vararg-ish assembly macros:
> 
> arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S:     DEFAULT_FRAME 0, 8              /* offset 8: return address */
> arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S:     DEFAULT_FRAME 0, 8
> arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S:     DEFAULT_FRAME 0, 8
> arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S:     DEFAULT_FRAME 0, 8
> arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S:     DEFAULT_FRAME 0, 8
> arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S:     DEFAULT_FRAME 0, 8
> arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S:     DEFAULT_FRAME 0, 8
> arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S:     DEFAULT_FRAME
> arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S:     DEFAULT_FRAME 0
> arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S:     DEFAULT_FRAME 0
> arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S:     DEFAULT_FRAME
> arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S:     DEFAULT_FRAME
> arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S:     DEFAULT_FRAME
> arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S:     DEFAULT_FRAME 0
> 
>     because unlike C functions they make the actual arguments a guessing game: 
>     you always have to double check the macro definition itself - while the
>     'savings' in terms of less code written are miniscule. So it actually obscures 
>     macros.
> 
>     So these should be flattened, with clear, fixed length parameter signatures, 
>     to make them as similar to regular C code as syntactically possible.

Not sure why assembly code should look like C code. It's a matter
of taste perhaps, and I can see your point, but I'm also not really
eager to do changes just to match other people's taste. And just
like above - certainly not something for this patch I would think.

Jan

--
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/