lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC -tip] x86: introduce ENTRY(KPROBE)_X86 assembly helpers to catch unbalanced declaration
    [Ingo Molnar - Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 08:00:25PM +0100]
    |
    | * Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> wrote:
    |
    | > [Ingo Molnar - Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 07:54:17PM +0100]
    | > |
    | > | * Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> wrote:
    | > |
    | > | > [Sam Ravnborg - Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 07:12:48PM +0100]
    | > | > ...
    | > | > | >
    | > | > | > I don't have -next tree on my laptop, neither cross-compile tools but
    | > | > | > if someone could test it -- it would be great. But I used gas macros
    | > | > | > here -- i doubt other architectures has the same syntax. At least
    | > | > | > PDP-11 would beat us with ';' symbol :)
    | > | > |
    | > | > | If we include this in any of the 100+ trees that Stephen sucks
    | > | > | into -next we will get it tried out.
    | > | > |
    | > | > | Ingo has so and so does others so getting it into -next
    | > | > | is rather easy. Then the automated builds will tell of if
    | > | > | it fails on any of the toolchains used there.
    | > | > |
    | > | > | Sam
    | > | > |
    | > | >
    | > | > Sam, to be clear, you mean that I could put this stuff into general
    | > | > include/linux/linkage.h with general names as ENTRY/END and the same
    | > | > for KPROBE so it could be merged into -next tree for testing? If
    | > | > yes, that as I said there will be a lot of errors so build will
    | > | > stuck in a moment 'cause of unbalanced ENTRY. Not sure if it's a
    | > | > good idea :)
    | > |
    | > | neither do i think it's a particularly good idea. Lets first prototype
    | > | it on x86, see how it works out in practice, and then see whether it
    | > | can be generic. Then it can just be lifted into the generic linkage.h
    | > | separately, and we can then see whether it causes new problems.
    | > |
    | > | Ingo
    | > |
    | >
    | > So be it :) Btw I think Alexander is right -- better to use .warning
    | > instead of .error (and without .abort) even on x86. Could you update
    | > Ingo?
    |
    | .error is perfectly fine because that way automated tests that we do
    | on -tip will catch any bugs, we really dont want to mis-annotate these
    | things. Warnings tend to only pile up and rarely get fixed - without
    | enforcement mechanism that causes people to fix them.
    |
    | Ingo
    |

    Just got an error in implementation -- we have to support nested
    ENTRY without problem. Will check. What a surprise :-)

    - Cyrill -


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-11-23 20:25    [W:0.024 / U:1.580 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site