* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>> You should rename it then to "asmcall" or something.
> >>>>
> >>> if then that should be a separate renaming patch.
> >>>
> >> Well you're asking for the ugly hacks for out of tree code. [...]
> >>
> >
> > nice word-bending there. I'm asking for pre-existing annotations to
> > survive. It hurts you _nothing_ and it was a world of pain for us to
> > recover those lost annotations. Anyway, if Jeremy does not object to the
> > patch
>
> I don't have any objections to the idea of the patch, but I'm still
> concerned about the practical aspects of it. Maintaining these kinds
> of annotations is hard/fragile/etc when the compiler doesn't warn when
> you get it wrong, and only a very specific use-case will reveal the
> problem (and do so in a fairly obscure way).
it wont be any different from the situation before - we had no such
warnings there either. Anyway, this shouldnt really bother you as at the
moment it's only used for -rt. The issue is to keep something we had
before (but which was stupidly/carelessly removed). If it breaks we'll
fix it up.
> > we'll push it in and then rename fastcall to asmcall. Much ado about
> > nothing.
>
> Hm, "asmcall" is confusingly close to "asmlinkage" - and they have
> exactly the same intent (can be called from asm), but with exactly the
> opposite effect. How about something which actually says what we
> mean. How about just "regparm"?
yeah, regparm is fine.
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/
