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

[Cyrill Gorcunov]

[Sam Ravnborg - Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 07:00:23PM +0100]
...
| > 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
| 

It could disable us to make such a conversion step-by-step I think.
Of course it would be better to just extend ENTRY/END (since already
there) and we could even restrict it to X86 only at the beginning
but even then we have to check all ENTRY/END that they are used properly
(ie like a procedure markers having @function attribute). Not sure
what would be better. And btw ENDPROC is more descriptive then plain END :)

		- Cyrill -
--
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/