Re: [PATCH 2/9] objtool: Fix ORC unwinding in non-JIT BPF generated code

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 1:11 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 12:35:38AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 09:08:52AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 08:20:30PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 01:57:11PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > >
> > > > > and to patches 8 and 9.
> > > >
> > > > Well, it's your code, but ... can I ask why?  AT&T syntax is the
> > > > standard for Linux, which is in fact the OS we are developing for.
> > >
> > > I agree, all assembly in Linux is AT&T, adding Intel notation only
> > > serves to cause confusion.
> >
> > It's not assembly. It's C code that generates binary and here
> > we're talking about comments.
>
> And comments are useless if they don't clarify. Intel syntax confuses.
>
> > I'm sure you're not proposing to do:
> > /* mov src, dst */
> > #define EMIT_mov(DST, SRC)                                                               \
> > right?
>
> Which is why Josh reversed both of them. The current Intel order is just
> terribly confusing. And I don't see any of the other JITs having
> confusing comments like this.
>
> > bpf_jit_comp.c stays as-is. Enough of it.
>
> I think you're forgetting this is also arch/x86 code, and no, it needs
> changes because its broken wrt unwinding.

See MAINTAINERS file.
If you guys keep insisting on pointless churn like this
we'll move arch/x86/net/ into net/ where it probably belongs.
netdev has its own comment style too.
And it is also probably confusing to some folks.