Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1188200
| From | Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 13/21] x86/asm/crypto: Fix frame pointer usage in aesni-intel_asm.S |
| Date | 2015-07-20 16:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pOjLQ-30h-17@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <pNjNU-6GQ-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <pNkAi-7Qa-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <pNqw2-83S-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <pNrs6-Xz-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <pOe9s-3nL-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 09:56:11AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > The reason I suggested to put FRAME in the macro name is to try to prevent it > > from being accidentally used for leaf functions, where it isn't needed. > > Well, we could use LEAF_FUNCTION to mark that fact. > > Wether a function written in assembly is a leaf function or not is a higher level > (and thus more valuable) piece of information whether we generate frame pointer > debuginfo or not. > > > Also the naming of FUNCTION_ENTRY and FUNCTION_RETURN doesn't do anything to > > distinguish them from the already ubiquitous ENTRY and ENDPROC. So as a kernel > > developer it seems confusing to me, e.g. how do I remember when to use > > FUNCTION_ENTRY vs ENTRY? > > 'ENDPROC' is really leftover from older debuginfo cruft, it's not a valuable > construct IMHO, even if it's (sadly) ubiquitious. > > We want to create new, clean, as minimal as possible and as clearly named as > possible debuginfo constructs from first principles. Ok. So if I understand right, the proposal is: Replace *all* x86 usage of ENTRY/ENDPROC with either: FUNCTION_ENTRY(func) FUNCTION_RETURN(func) or LEAF_FUNCTION_ENTRY(func) LEAF_FUNCTION_RETURN(func) Those sound fine to me. I should point out that there are still a few cases where the more granular FRAME/ENDFRAME and ENTRY/ENDPROC macros would still be needed. For example, if the function ends with a jump instead of a ret. If the jump is a sibling call, the code would look like: FUNCTION_ENTRY(func) ... ENDFRAME jmp another_func ENDPROC(func) Or if it's a jump within the function to an internal ret: FUNCTION_ENTRY(func) ... 1: ... ENDFRAME ret 2: ... jmp 1b ENDPROC(func) Or if it jumps to some shared code before returning: FUNCTION_ENTRY(func_1) ... jmp common_return ENDPROC(func_1) FUNCTION_ENTRY(func_2) ... jmp common_return ENDPROC(func_2) common_return: ... ENDFRAME ret So in some cases we'd still need the more granular macros, unless we decided to make special macros for these cases as well. -- Josh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [RFC PATCH 13/21] x86/asm/crypto: Fix frame pointer usage in aesni-intel_asm.S Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2015-07-20 16:00 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 13/21] x86/asm/crypto: Fix frame pointer usage in aesni-intel_asm.S Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2015-07-20 19:30 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 13/21] x86/asm/crypto: Fix frame pointer usage in aesni-intel_asm.S Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2015-07-20 20:10 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 13/21] x86/asm/crypto: Fix frame pointer usage in aesni-intel_asm.S Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2015-07-22 14:00 +0200
csiph-web