* Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > ENTRY(aesni_set_key) > + FRAME > #ifndef __x86_64__ > pushl KEYP > movl 8(%esp), KEYP # ctx > @@ -1905,6 +1907,7 @@ ENTRY(aesni_set_key) > #ifndef __x86_64__ > popl KEYP > #endif > + ENDFRAME > ret > ENDPROC(aesni_set_key) So cannot we make this a bit more compact and less fragile? Instead of: ENTRY(aesni_set_key) FRAME ... ENDFRAME ret ENDPROC(aesni_set_key) How about writing this as: FUNCTION_ENTRY(aesni_set_key) ... FUNCTION_RETURN(aesni_set_key) which does the same thing in a short, symmetric construct? One potential problem with this approach would be that what 'looks' like an entry declaration, but it will now generate real code. OTOH if people find this intuitive enough then it's a lot harder to mess it up, and I think 'RETURN' makes it clear enough that there's a real instruction generated there. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe live-patching" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
