Re: [PATCH] x86/asm: Introduce a tailcall pseduo-op

2023-07-04 Thread Jan Beulich
On 04.07.2023 19:04, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 04/07/2023 3:29 pm, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 30.06.2023 17:20, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> It was previously noted that CALL/BUG is a weird combination, but there is >>> good reason to use this pattern. >>> >>> Introduce an explicit tailcall macro make it

Re: [PATCH] x86/asm: Introduce a tailcall pseduo-op

2023-07-04 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 04/07/2023 3:29 pm, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 30.06.2023 17:20, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> It was previously noted that CALL/BUG is a weird combination, but there is >> good reason to use this pattern. >> >> Introduce an explicit tailcall macro make it clearer in context. >> >> No functional change.

Re: [PATCH] x86/asm: Introduce a tailcall pseduo-op

2023-07-04 Thread Jan Beulich
On 30.06.2023 17:20, Andrew Cooper wrote: > It was previously noted that CALL/BUG is a weird combination, but there is > good reason to use this pattern. > > Introduce an explicit tailcall macro make it clearer in context. > > No functional change. > > Reported-by: Jan Beulich Did I? Must have

[PATCH] x86/asm: Introduce a tailcall pseduo-op

2023-06-30 Thread Andrew Cooper
It was previously noted that CALL/BUG is a weird combination, but there is good reason to use this pattern. Introduce an explicit tailcall macro make it clearer in context. No functional change. Reported-by: Jan Beulich Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper --- CC: Jan Beulich CC: Roger Pau Monné CC: