On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 12:33:59 -0600
Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 11:51:10 -0600
> > Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Also - is it ok to alias a function with one signature to a function with
> >> another signature?
> >
> > Ordinarily I'd say no wucking fay, but that's effectively what we've been
> > doing in there for ages, and it seems to work.
>
> Hmm that gives me a lot of confidence ;-) I'd hate to carry along bad
> assumptions while we try to make this all kosher... but I'm willing to
> defer to popular opinion on this one....
yeah, I'm a bit wobbly about it. Linus, what do you think?
> > I'd be a bit worried if any of these functions were returning pointers,
> > because one could certainly conceive of an arch+compiler combo which
> > returns pointers in a different register from integers (680x0?) but that's
> > not happening here.
>
> Well, one is...
>
> static long * return_EIO_ptr(void)
> {
> return ERR_PTR(-EIO);
> }
> ...
> static struct dentry *bad_inode_lookup(struct inode * dir,
> struct dentry *dentry, struct nameidata *nd)
> __attribute__((alias("return_EIO_ptr")));
>
> Maybe it'd be better to lose the alias in this case then? and go back
> to this:
>
> static struct dentry *bad_inode_lookup(struct inode * dir,
> struct dentry *dentry, struct nameidata *nd)
> {
> return ERR_PTR(-EIO);
> }
A bit saner, but again, the old code used the same function for *everything*
and apart from the 32/64-bit thing, it worked.
Half a kb isn't much of course, but we've done lots of changes for a lot
less...
-
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/
