Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>>> we should kill it there too.
>>>
>>> the only place where we should _please_ keep those annotations are for
>>> functions that get called from assembly code. This makes life immensely
>>> easier for -pg (CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACING) kernels.
>>>
>> Should we re-add them for the function pointers in asm-x86/paravirt.h?
>>
>
> yes, yes, yes. :-) It was a nightmare to sort it out in -rt (and still
> is). It's also good documentation - it pinpoints functions that are
> called from assembly.
>
>
>> Andi argued we should remove them since x86 is unconditionally regparm
>> now anyway - and they're pretty ugly syntactically.
>>
>
> Sure, it doesnt make things prettier, but i didnt see any particular
> ugliness.
One thought I had is that "fastcall" doesn't really mean the right
thing. The speed or otherwise of the call is a side-effect, but what we
really mean is something like "regparm". Ie, document the actual
calling convention used, rather than an effect of the calling convention.
I guess "fastcall" has enough history now.
J
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
User-mode-linux-devel mailing list
User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
