On Wednesday 28 June 2006 14:00, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi. > > On Wednesday 28 June 2006 21:53, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Wednesday 28 June 2006 12:48, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > > I received a report of problems with CONFIG_REGPARM and suspending, that > > > led me to recheck asm calls and declarations. Not being a guru on these > > > things, I want to ask advice from those who know more. > > > > > > Along the way I noticed that current git has: > > > > > > extern asmlinkage int swsusp_arch_suspend(void); > > > extern asmlinkage int swsusp_arch_resume(void); > > > > > > This is right for x86, but for x86_64, we actually call a C routine in > > > arch/x86_64/kernel/suspend.c, which calls restore_image in > > > arch/x86_64/kernel/suspend_asm.S. Restore image is declared in suspend.c > > > as > > > > > > extern int restore_image(void); > > > > > > should it be: > > > > > > extern asmlinkage int restore_image(void); > > > > > > Having swsusp_arch_resume declared as asmlinkage doesn't matter, does it? > > > > No, it doesn't. It would have mattered on i386 if the function had taken > > any arguments. AFAICT, on x86_64 it desn't matter at all. > > Right. But what about restore_image lacking the asmlinkage? I'm also wondering > if that does matter. I think asmlinkage would not matter here too (the function is x86_64-specific). Greetings, Rafael
