[Sam Ravnborg - Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 06:26:40PM +0100] | On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:17:54AM +0100, Alexander van Heukelum wrote: | > Introduce the PROC macro in the generic header file | > include/linux/linkage.h to annotate functions in assembly | > files. This is a first step to fully annotate functions | > (procedures) in .S-files. The PROC macro complements the | > already existing and being used ENDPROC macro. The generic | > implementation of PROC is exactly the same as ENTRY. | > | > The goal is to annotate functions, at least those called | > from C code, with PROC at the beginning and ENDPROC at the | > end. This is for the benefit of debugging and tracing. It | > will also allow to introduce a framework to check for | > nesting problems and missing annotations in a later stage | > by overriding ENTRY/END and PROC/ENDPROC in architecture- | > specific code, after the annotation errors have been fixed. | > | > Signed-off-by: Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@xxxxxxxxxxx> | > Cc: Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> | > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> | | I understand where you are coming from with these. | But what I see now is: | | ENTRY/END | PROC/ENDPROC | KPROBE_ENTRY/KPROBE_END | | And it is not obvious for me reading the comment when I should | expect which one to be used. | | Could we try to keep it down to two variants? | And then document when to use which one. | | Sam | Sam, I think eventually we should get something like this: - KPROBE will be eliminated and explicit section descriptions are to be used - ENTRY could be used / or renamed for something more descriptive and being used aligned jmp targets or in case of procs with shared body - PROC/ENDPROC are to replace old ENTRY/END for procs being called mostly from C code Did I miss something? Does it sound like a good/bad plan? - Cyrill - -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
