Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 23 Nov 2008 21:57:26 +0300 | From | Cyrill Gorcunov <> | Subject | Re: [RFC -tip] x86: introduce ENTRY(KPROBE)_X86 assembly helpers to catch unbalanced declaration |
| |
[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?
- Cyrill -
| |