Ingo Molnar wrote:
quoted text
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> 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
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/