On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 1:11 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 12:35:38AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 09:08:52AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 08:20:30PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 01:57:11PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > > > > > > and to patches 8 and 9. > > > > > > > > Well, it's your code, but ... can I ask why? AT&T syntax is the > > > > standard for Linux, which is in fact the OS we are developing for. > > > > > > I agree, all assembly in Linux is AT&T, adding Intel notation only > > > serves to cause confusion. > > > > It's not assembly. It's C code that generates binary and here > > we're talking about comments. > > And comments are useless if they don't clarify. Intel syntax confuses. > > > I'm sure you're not proposing to do: > > /* mov src, dst */ > > #define EMIT_mov(DST, SRC) \ > > right? > > Which is why Josh reversed both of them. The current Intel order is just > terribly confusing. And I don't see any of the other JITs having > confusing comments like this. > > > bpf_jit_comp.c stays as-is. Enough of it. > > I think you're forgetting this is also arch/x86 code, and no, it needs > changes because its broken wrt unwinding. See MAINTAINERS file. If you guys keep insisting on pointless churn like this we'll move arch/x86/net/ into net/ where it probably belongs. netdev has its own comment style too. And it is also probably confusing to some folks.
