* Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 2:09 PM, H. Peter Anvin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Call it sys if it is now only the system call entry points. Agreed with
> > _64_compat too.
> >
> > Breaking up these snarls of spaghetti assembly will be a blessing.
>
> I'm not too picky about what we call it or whether we merge it with
> entry_64.S.
> *However*, I think the file name should end in _64.S. The whole arch/x86 tree
> is
> arranged such that files that end in _64.S or _64.c are build for 64-bit
> kernels
> and not for 32-bit kernels. I see no reason to deviate from that.
>
> FWIW, I'm eventually planning to completely rewrite the compat entry points
> to
> use the new (RFC patches coming in a week or two I hope!) C exit code with
> opportunistic sysretl at the end. I'm guessing the result will be about half
> the size of the current code, and it'll be comprehensible to mere mortals.
Ok, so I think the best is if I leave it alone for now: I've renamed it to
entry_64_compat.S as per Boris's and hpa's suggestion, but won't merge it into
entry_64.S (yet), let's see how your C conversion works out!
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
