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
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 07:54:17PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * 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.

OK - I assume you guys will take action on this if we succeed in x86
with this nice build time check.

Sam


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-23 20:53    [W:0.042 / U:0.628 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site