On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 10:45:46AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
quoted text
> 
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:
> 
> > >> 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).
> > 
> > Do you have a patch to do this already?
> 
> yes, attached. Ack?
> 
> 	Ingo
> 
> ---------------------------->
> Subject: [patch] paravirt: mark assembly dependencies as fastcall
> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> 
> the 'fastcall removal' changes to paravirt.c were over-eager: they
> removed fastcall annotations from functions that are (or might be)
> implemented in assembly. So if someone changes the compiler model,
> such as -pg which disables regparm, the kernel breaks in nasty ways.
> 
> so this patch adds back fastcall annotations. This serves as
> documentation for assembly calling-convention dependencies as
> well.
>...

I see a point in annotating all C code called from assembler code with 
either fastcall or asmlinkage, but how will these annotations be 
maintained?

Without anything giving at least a warning these annotations will simply 
bitrot.

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
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/