Re: uml and -regparm=3

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...>
Cc: Jeff Dike <jdike@...>, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...>, <harvey.harrison@...>, <akpm@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <user-mode-linux-devel@...>
Date: Wednesday, January 9, 2008 - 10:45 pm

Andi Kleen wrote:

That seems to go in the wrong direction to me.  It would make more sense 
to gradually shift to asmlinkage actually being regparm=3.  This, of 
course, would require a different name (such as FASTCALL) until the 
conversion is complete -- even if done as a single patch series.

	-hpa
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
uml and -regparm=3, Miklos Szeredi, (Wed Jan 9, 5:01 pm)
Re: uml and -regparm=3, Ingo Molnar, (Thu Jan 10, 3:32 am)
Re: uml and -regparm=3, Miklos Szeredi, (Thu Jan 10, 5:05 am)
Re: uml and -regparm=3, Ingo Molnar, (Thu Jan 10, 5:35 am)
Re: uml and -regparm=3, linux-os (Dick Johnson), (Wed Jan 9, 6:01 pm)
Re: uml and -regparm=3, Andi Kleen, (Wed Jan 9, 5:12 pm)
Re: uml and -regparm=3, Miklos Szeredi, (Wed Jan 9, 5:20 pm)
Re: uml and -regparm=3, Adrian Bunk, (Wed Jan 9, 5:33 pm)
Re: uml and -regparm=3, Andi Kleen, (Wed Jan 9, 5:32 pm)
Re: uml and -regparm=3, Miklos Szeredi, (Wed Jan 9, 5:50 pm)
Re: uml and -regparm=3, Jeff Dike, (Wed Jan 9, 10:14 pm)
Re: uml and -regparm=3, Andi Kleen, (Wed Jan 9, 10:37 pm)
Re: uml and -regparm=3, H. Peter Anvin, (Wed Jan 9, 10:45 pm)