On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > * 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. > How about FUNCTION_PROLOGUE and FUNCTION_EPILOGUE? -Andy -- 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
