Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1590168 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 01/10] x86: assembly, ENTRY for fn, GLOBAL for data

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH 01/10] x86: assembly, ENTRY for fn, GLOBAL for data Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2017-03-01 11:10 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 01/10] x86: assembly, ENTRY for fn, GLOBAL for data Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-03-01 12:10 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 01/10] x86: assembly, ENTRY for fn, GLOBAL for data Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz> - 2017-03-03 15:20 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 01/10] x86: assembly, ENTRY for fn, GLOBAL for data hpa@zytor.com - 2017-03-03 19:30 +0100
        Re: [PATCH 01/10] x86: assembly, ENTRY for fn, GLOBAL for data Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz> - 2017-03-06 15:20 +0100
        Re: [PATCH 01/10] x86: assembly, ENTRY for fn, GLOBAL for data Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-03-07 09:10 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 01/10] x86: assembly, ENTRY for fn, GLOBAL for data hpa@zytor.com - 2017-03-03 20:50 +0100
        Re: [PATCH 01/10] x86: assembly, ENTRY for fn, GLOBAL for data Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-03-07 09:40 +0100
          [RFC] linkage: new macros for functions and data Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz> - 2017-03-07 18:50 +0100

#1590168 — Re: [PATCH 01/10] x86: assembly, ENTRY for fn, GLOBAL for data

On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz> wrote:
> 
> > This is a start of series to unify use of ENTRY, ENDPROC, GLOBAL, END,
> > and other macros across x86. When we have all this sorted out, this will
> > help to inject DWARF unwinding info by objtool later.
> > 
> > So, let us use the macros this way:
> > * ENTRY -- start of a global function
> > * ENDPROC -- end of a local/global function
> > * GLOBAL -- start of a globally visible data symbol
> > * END -- end of local/global data symbol
> 
> So how about using macro names that actually show the purpose, instead of 
> importing all the crappy, historic, essentially randomly chosen debug symbol macro 
> names from the binutils and older kernels?
> 
> Something sane, like:
> 
> 	SYM__FUNCTION_START

Sane would be:

     	SYM_FUNCTION_START

The double underscore is just not giving any value.

Thanks,

	tglx

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1590248

* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz> wrote:
> > 
> > > This is a start of series to unify use of ENTRY, ENDPROC, GLOBAL, END,
> > > and other macros across x86. When we have all this sorted out, this will
> > > help to inject DWARF unwinding info by objtool later.
> > > 
> > > So, let us use the macros this way:
> > > * ENTRY -- start of a global function
> > > * ENDPROC -- end of a local/global function
> > > * GLOBAL -- start of a globally visible data symbol
> > > * END -- end of local/global data symbol
> > 
> > So how about using macro names that actually show the purpose, instead of 
> > importing all the crappy, historic, essentially randomly chosen debug symbol macro 
> > names from the binutils and older kernels?
> > 
> > Something sane, like:
> > 
> > 	SYM__FUNCTION_START
> 
> Sane would be:
> 
>      	SYM_FUNCTION_START
> 
> The double underscore is just not giving any value.

So the double underscore (at least in my view) has two advantages:

1) it helps separate the prefix from the postfix.

I.e. it's a 'symbols' namespace, and a 'function start', not the 'start' of a 
'symbol function'.

2) It also helps easy greppability.

Try this in latest -tip:

  git grep e820__

To see all the E820 API calls - with no false positives!

'git grep e820_' on the other hand is a lot less reliable...

But no strong feelings either way, I just try to sneak in these small namespace 
structure tricks when nobody's looking! ;-)

Thanks,

	Ingo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1591982

On 03/01/2017, 11:27 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> But no strong feelings either way, I just try to sneak in these small namespace 
> structure tricks when nobody's looking! ;-)

So I assume to introduce two underscores.

thanks,
-- 
js
suse labs

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1592196

On March 1, 2017 2:27:54 AM PST, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> > 
>> > * Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz> wrote:
>> > 
>> > > This is a start of series to unify use of ENTRY, ENDPROC, GLOBAL,
>END,
>> > > and other macros across x86. When we have all this sorted out,
>this will
>> > > help to inject DWARF unwinding info by objtool later.
>> > > 
>> > > So, let us use the macros this way:
>> > > * ENTRY -- start of a global function
>> > > * ENDPROC -- end of a local/global function
>> > > * GLOBAL -- start of a globally visible data symbol
>> > > * END -- end of local/global data symbol
>> > 
>> > So how about using macro names that actually show the purpose,
>instead of 
>> > importing all the crappy, historic, essentially randomly chosen
>debug symbol macro 
>> > names from the binutils and older kernels?
>> > 
>> > Something sane, like:
>> > 
>> > 	SYM__FUNCTION_START
>> 
>> Sane would be:
>> 
>>      	SYM_FUNCTION_START
>> 
>> The double underscore is just not giving any value.
>
>So the double underscore (at least in my view) has two advantages:
>
>1) it helps separate the prefix from the postfix.
>
>I.e. it's a 'symbols' namespace, and a 'function start', not the
>'start' of a 
>'symbol function'.
>
>2) It also helps easy greppability.
>
>Try this in latest -tip:
>
>  git grep e820__
>
>To see all the E820 API calls - with no false positives!
>
>'git grep e820_' on the other hand is a lot less reliable...
>
>But no strong feelings either way, I just try to sneak in these small
>namespace 
>structure tricks when nobody's looking! ;-)
>
>Thanks,
>
>	Ingo

This seems needlessly verbose to me and clutters the code.

How about:

PROC..ENDPROC, LOCALPROC..ENDPROC and DATA..ENDDATA.  Clear, unambiguous and balanced.


-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1593402

On 03/03/2017, 07:20 PM, hpa@zytor.com wrote:
> On March 1, 2017 2:27:54 AM PST, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> * Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>>
>>>> * Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is a start of series to unify use of ENTRY, ENDPROC, GLOBAL,
>> END,
>>>>> and other macros across x86. When we have all this sorted out,
>> this will
>>>>> help to inject DWARF unwinding info by objtool later.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, let us use the macros this way:
>>>>> * ENTRY -- start of a global function
>>>>> * ENDPROC -- end of a local/global function
>>>>> * GLOBAL -- start of a globally visible data symbol
>>>>> * END -- end of local/global data symbol
>>>>
>>>> So how about using macro names that actually show the purpose,
>> instead of 
>>>> importing all the crappy, historic, essentially randomly chosen
>> debug symbol macro 
>>>> names from the binutils and older kernels?
>>>>
>>>> Something sane, like:
>>>>
>>>> 	SYM__FUNCTION_START
>>>
>>> Sane would be:
>>>
>>>      	SYM_FUNCTION_START
>>>
>>> The double underscore is just not giving any value.
>>
>> So the double underscore (at least in my view) has two advantages:
>>
>> 1) it helps separate the prefix from the postfix.
>>
>> I.e. it's a 'symbols' namespace, and a 'function start', not the
>> 'start' of a 
>> 'symbol function'.
>>
>> 2) It also helps easy greppability.
>>
>> Try this in latest -tip:
>>
>>  git grep e820__
>>
>> To see all the E820 API calls - with no false positives!
>>
>> 'git grep e820_' on the other hand is a lot less reliable...
>>
>> But no strong feelings either way, I just try to sneak in these small
>> namespace 
>> structure tricks when nobody's looking! ;-)
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> 	Ingo
> 
> This seems needlessly verbose to me and clutters the code.
> 
> How about:
> 
> PROC..ENDPROC, LOCALPROC..ENDPROC and DATA..ENDDATA.  Clear, unambiguous and balanced.

I tried this, but:
arch/x86/kernel/relocate_kernel_64.S:27:0: warning: "DATA" redefined
 #define DATA(offset)  (KEXEC_CONTROL_CODE_MAX_SIZE+(offset))


I am not saying that I cannot fix it up. I just want to say, that these
names might be too generic, especially "PROC" and "DATA". So should I
really stick to these?

thanks,
-- 
js
suse labs

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1593956

* hpa@zytor.com <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:

> On March 1, 2017 2:27:54 AM PST, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> >* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >> > 
> >> > * Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> > > This is a start of series to unify use of ENTRY, ENDPROC, GLOBAL,
> >END,
> >> > > and other macros across x86. When we have all this sorted out,
> >this will
> >> > > help to inject DWARF unwinding info by objtool later.
> >> > > 
> >> > > So, let us use the macros this way:
> >> > > * ENTRY -- start of a global function
> >> > > * ENDPROC -- end of a local/global function
> >> > > * GLOBAL -- start of a globally visible data symbol
> >> > > * END -- end of local/global data symbol
> >> > 
> >> > So how about using macro names that actually show the purpose,
> >instead of 
> >> > importing all the crappy, historic, essentially randomly chosen
> >debug symbol macro 
> >> > names from the binutils and older kernels?
> >> > 
> >> > Something sane, like:
> >> > 
> >> > 	SYM__FUNCTION_START
> >> 
> >> Sane would be:
> >> 
> >>      	SYM_FUNCTION_START
> >> 
> >> The double underscore is just not giving any value.
> >
> >So the double underscore (at least in my view) has two advantages:
> >
> >1) it helps separate the prefix from the postfix.
> >
> >I.e. it's a 'symbols' namespace, and a 'function start', not the
> >'start' of a 
> >'symbol function'.
> >
> >2) It also helps easy greppability.
> >
> >Try this in latest -tip:
> >
> >  git grep e820__
> >
> >To see all the E820 API calls - with no false positives!
> >
> >'git grep e820_' on the other hand is a lot less reliable...
> >
> >But no strong feelings either way, I just try to sneak in these small
> >namespace 
> >structure tricks when nobody's looking! ;-)
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >	Ingo
> 
> This seems needlessly verbose to me and clutters the code.
> 
> How about:
> 
> PROC..ENDPROC, LOCALPROC..ENDPROC and DATA..ENDDATA.  Clear, unambiguous and balanced.

I'm sorry, but that naming scheme is disgusing, it reminds me of BASIC 
nomenclature ... did we run out of underscores or what?

Nor would clearly structured names clutter anything, this isn't going to be used 
deep inside nested code, it's going to be the single level syntactic term in 
addition to the symbol name itself:

	SYM__FUNCTION_START(some_kernel_asm_function)
	...
	SYM__FUNCTION_END(some_kernel_asm_function)

We could shorten it to 'FUNC' if length is really an issue:

	SYM__FUNC_START(some_kernel_asm_function)
	...
	SYM__FUNC_END(some_kernel_asm_function)

Also, 'PROC', presumably standing for 'procedure', is both ambiguous and a 
misnomer:

 - it's ambiguous with commonly used abbreviations of procfs and process

 - C functions are not actually 'procedures'. Procedures in PASCAL style languages
   denote functions that don't return any values. Most of the kernel asm functions
   actually do. I realize that even in C we sometimes talk about 'procedures' out
   of hysterical inertia, but if you check the C standards, most of them don't
   even use the term 'procedure'.

'function' on the other hand is totally unambiguous.

Plus the lack of START/STOP (or BEGIN/END) makes it easy to commit the mistake of 
forgetting to add the end marker, and your naming scheme preserves that!

So if we fix/extend these macros then _PLEASE_ we need to get this stupid, 
illogical, nonsensical, external tooling inherited naming craziness fixed first, 
not doubled down on...

</rant>

Thanks,

	Ingo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1592252

On March 1, 2017 2:27:54 AM PST, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> > 
>> > * Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz> wrote:
>> > 
>> > > This is a start of series to unify use of ENTRY, ENDPROC, GLOBAL,
>END,
>> > > and other macros across x86. When we have all this sorted out,
>this will
>> > > help to inject DWARF unwinding info by objtool later.
>> > > 
>> > > So, let us use the macros this way:
>> > > * ENTRY -- start of a global function
>> > > * ENDPROC -- end of a local/global function
>> > > * GLOBAL -- start of a globally visible data symbol
>> > > * END -- end of local/global data symbol
>> > 
>> > So how about using macro names that actually show the purpose,
>instead of 
>> > importing all the crappy, historic, essentially randomly chosen
>debug symbol macro 
>> > names from the binutils and older kernels?
>> > 
>> > Something sane, like:
>> > 
>> > 	SYM__FUNCTION_START
>> 
>> Sane would be:
>> 
>>      	SYM_FUNCTION_START
>> 
>> The double underscore is just not giving any value.
>
>So the double underscore (at least in my view) has two advantages:
>
>1) it helps separate the prefix from the postfix.
>
>I.e. it's a 'symbols' namespace, and a 'function start', not the
>'start' of a 
>'symbol function'.
>
>2) It also helps easy greppability.
>
>Try this in latest -tip:
>
>  git grep e820__
>
>To see all the E820 API calls - with no false positives!
>
>'git grep e820_' on the other hand is a lot less reliable...
>
>But no strong feelings either way, I just try to sneak in these small
>namespace 
>structure tricks when nobody's looking! ;-)
>
>Thanks,
>
>	Ingo

IMO these little "namespace tricks" especially for small common macros like we are taking about here make the code very frustrating to read, and even more to write.  Noone would design a programming language that way, and things like PROC are really just substitutes for proper language features (and could even be as assembly rather than cpp macros.)

When I say frustrating I mean, at least for me, full-Ballmer launch-chair-at-monitor level frustrating.
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1593988

* hpa@zytor.com <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:

> On March 1, 2017 2:27:54 AM PST, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:

> >> > So how about using macro names that actually show the purpose, instead of 
> >> > importing all the crappy, historic, essentially randomly chosen debug 
> >> > symbol macro names from the binutils and older kernels?
> >> > 
> >> > Something sane, like:
> >> > 
> >> > 	SYM__FUNCTION_START
> >> 
> >> Sane would be:
> >> 
> >>      	SYM_FUNCTION_START
> >> 
> >> The double underscore is just not giving any value.
> >
> > So the double underscore (at least in my view) has two advantages:
> >
> > 1) it helps separate the prefix from the postfix.
> >
> > I.e. it's a 'symbols' namespace, and a 'function start', not the 'start' of a 
> > 'symbol function'.
> >
> > 2) It also helps easy greppability.
> >
> > Try this in latest -tip:
> >
> >    git grep e820__
> >
> > To see all the E820 API calls - with no false positives!
> >
> > 'git grep e820_' on the other hand is a lot less reliable...
> 
> IMO these little "namespace tricks" especially for small common macros like we 
> are taking about here make the code very frustrating to read, and even more to 
> write.  Noone would design a programming language that way, and things like PROC 
> are really just substitutes for proper language features (and could even be as 
> assembly rather than cpp macros.)

This is a totally different thing from language keywords which needs to be short 
and concise for obvious reasons.

Keywords of languages get nested and are used all the time, and everyone needs to 
know them and they need to stay out of the way. The symbol start/end macros we are 
talking about here are _MUCH_ less common, and they are only ever used in a single 
nesting level:

        SYM__FUNC_START(some_kernel_asm_function)
        ...
        SYM__FUNC_END(some_kernel_asm_function)

Most kernel developers writing new assembly code rarely know these constructs by 
heart, they just look them up and carbon copy existing practices. And guess what, 
the 'looking them up' gets harder if the macro naming scheme is an idosyncratic 
leftover from long ago.

Kernel developers _reading_ assembly code will know the exact purpose of the 
macros even less, especially if they are named in an ambiguous, illogical fashion.

Furthermore, your suggestion of:

> PROC..ENDPROC, LOCALPROC..ENDPROC and DATA..ENDDATA.  Clear, unambiguous and 
> balanced.

Are neither clear, not unambiguous nor balanced! I mean, they are the _exact_ 
opposite:

 - 'PROC' is actually ambiguous in the kernel source code context, as it clashes 
   with common abbreviations of 'procfs' and 'process'.

   It's also an unnecessary abbreviation of a word ('procedure') that is not 
   actually used a _single time_ in the C ISO/IEC 9899:TC2 standard - in all half 
   thousand+ pages of it. (!) Why the hell does this have to be used in the 
   kernel?

 - It's visually and semantically imbalanced, because some terms have an 'END' 
   prefix, but there's no matching 'START' or 'BEGIN' prefix for their 
   counterparts. This makes it easy to commit various symbol definition 
   termination errors, like:

	PROC(some_kernel_asm_function)
	...

   Here it's not obvious that it needs an ENDPROC. While if it's written as:

        SYM__FUNC_START(some_kernel_asm_function)
        ...

   ... it's pretty obvious at first sight that an '_END' is missing!

 - What you suggest also has senselessly missing underscores, which makes it 
   _more_ cluttered and less clear. We clearly don't have addtowaitqueue() and
   removefromwaitqueue() function names in the kernel, right? Why should we have
   'ENDPROC' and 'ENDDATA' macro names?

 - Hierarchical naming schemes generally tend to put the more generic category
   name first, not last. So it's:

	mutex_init()
	mutex_lock()
	mutex_unlock()
	mutex_trylock()

   It's _NOT_ the other way around:

	init_mutex()
	lock_mutex()
	unlock_mutex()
	trylock_mutex()

   The prefix naming scheme is easier to read both visually/typographically 
   (because it aligns vertically in a natural fashion so it's easier to pattern 
   match), and also semantically: because when reading it it's easy to skip the 
   line once your brain reads the generic category of 'mutex'.

   But with 'ENDPROC' my brain both has to needlessly perform the following steps:

	- disambiguate the 'END' and the 'PROC'

	- fill in the missing underscore

	- and finally when arriving at the generic term 'PROC', discard it as
	  uninteresting

 - Short names have good use in programming languages, because everyone who uses
   that language knows what they are and they become a visual substitute for the
   language element.

   But assembly macros are _NOT_ a new language in this sense, they are actually 
   more similar to library function names: where brevity is actually
   counterintuitive and harmful, because they are ambiguous and pollute the 
   generic namespace. If you look at C library API function name best practices
   you'll see that the best ones are all hierarchically named and categorized,
   with the more generic category put first, they are unambiguously balanced even
   if that makes the names longer, they are clear and use underscores.

For all these reasons the naming scheme you suggest is one of the worst we could 
come up with! I mean, if I had to _intentionally_ engineer something as harmful as 
possible to readability and maintainability this would be pretty close to it...

I'm upset, because even a single minute of reflection should have told you all 
this. I mean, IMHO it's not even a close argument: your suggested naming scheme is 
bleeding from half a dozen of mortal wounds...

I can be convinced to drop the double underscores (I seem to be in the minority 
regard them), and I can be convinced that 'FUNC' is shorter and still easy to 
understand instead of 'FUNCTION', but other than that please stop the naming 
madness!

Thanks,

	Ingo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1594476 — [RFC] linkage: new macros for functions and data

SYM_LOCAL_ALIAS_START -- use where there are two local names for one
  code
SYM_ALIAS_START -- use where there are two global names for one code
SYM_LOCAL_FUNC_START -- use for local functions
SYM_FUNCTION_START -- use for global functions
SYM_WEAK_FUNC_START -- use for weak functions
SYM_ALIAS_END -- the end of LOCALALIASed or ALIASed code
SYM_FUNCTION_END -- the end of SYM_LOCAL_FUNC_START, SYM_FUNCTION_START,
  SYM_WEAK_FUNC_START, ...
SYM_DATA_START -- global data symbol
SYM_DATA_END -- the end of SYM_DATA_START symbol

Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
Cc: hpa@zytor.com
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: jpoimboe@redhat.com
Cc: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
Cc: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@redhat.com
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
Cc: x86@kernel.org
---

So this is what I have ATM.

 include/linux/linkage.h | 87 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 72 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/linkage.h b/include/linux/linkage.h
index a6a42dd02466..79f634a57466 100644
--- a/include/linux/linkage.h
+++ b/include/linux/linkage.h
@@ -78,33 +78,90 @@
 #define ALIGN __ALIGN
 #define ALIGN_STR __ALIGN_STR
 
-#ifndef ENTRY
-#define ENTRY(name) \
-	.globl name ASM_NL \
+#ifndef ENTRY /* deprecated, use SYM_FUNCTION_START */
+#define ENTRY(name)	SYM_FUNCTION_START(name)
+#endif
+#endif /* LINKER_SCRIPT */
+
+/* === code annotations === */
+
+/* SYM_LOCAL_ALIAS_START -- use where there are two local names for one code */
+#ifndef SYM_LOCAL_ALIAS_START
+#define SYM_LOCAL_ALIAS_START(name) \
 	ALIGN ASM_NL \
 	name:
 #endif
-#endif /* LINKER_SCRIPT */
 
-#ifndef WEAK
-#define WEAK(name)	   \
+/* SYM_ALIAS_START -- use where there are two global names for one code */
+#ifndef SYM_ALIAS_START
+#define SYM_ALIAS_START(name) \
+	.globl name ASM_NL \
+	SYM_LOCAL_ALIAS_START(name)
+#endif
+
+/*
+ * so far the same as SYM_LOCAL_ALIAS_START, but we will need to distinguish
+ * them later
+ */
+/* SYM_LOCAL_FUNC_START -- use for local functions */
+#ifndef SYM_LOCAL_FUNC_START
+#define SYM_LOCAL_FUNC_START(name) \
+	SYM_LOCAL_ALIAS_START(name)
+#endif
+
+/* SYM_FUNCTION_START -- use for global functions */
+#ifndef SYM_FUNCTION_START
+#define SYM_FUNCTION_START(name) \
+	.globl name ASM_NL \
+	SYM_LOCAL_FUNC_START(name)
+#endif
+
+/* SYM_WEAK_FUNC_START -- use for weak functions */
+#ifndef SYM_WEAK_FUNC_START
+#define SYM_WEAK_FUNC_START(name) \
 	.weak name ASM_NL   \
 	name:
 #endif
 
-#ifndef END
-#define END(name) \
-	.size name, .-name
+/* SYM_ALIAS_END -- the end of LOCALALIASed or ALIASed code */
+#ifndef SYM_ALIAS_END
+#define SYM_ALIAS_END(name) \
+	.type name, @function ASM_NL \
+	SYM_DATA_END(name)
 #endif
 
 /* If symbol 'name' is treated as a subroutine (gets called, and returns)
- * then please use ENDPROC to mark 'name' as STT_FUNC for the benefit of
- * static analysis tools such as stack depth analyzer.
+ * then please use SYM_FUNCTION_END to mark 'name' as STT_FUNC for the benefit
+ * of static analysis tools such as stack depth analyzer.
  */
-#ifndef ENDPROC
-#define ENDPROC(name) \
-	.type name, @function ASM_NL \
-	END(name)
+/*
+ * SYM_FUNCTION_END -- the end of SYM_LOCAL_FUNC_START, SYM_FUNCTION_START,
+ * SYM_WEAK_FUNC_START, ...
+ */
+#ifndef SYM_FUNCTION_END
+#define SYM_FUNCTION_END(name) \
+	SYM_ALIAS_END(name) /* the same as for SYM_LOCAL_FUNC_START */
+#endif
+
+#ifndef WEAK /* deprecated, use SYM_WEAK_FUNC_START */
+#define WEAK(name)	SYM_WEAK_FUNC_START(name)
+#endif
+
+/* === data annotations === */
+
+/* SYM_DATA_START -- global data symbol */
+#ifndef SYM_DATA_START
+#define SYM_DATA_START(name)	SYM_FUNCTION_START(name)
+#endif
+
+/* SYM_DATA_END -- the end of SYM_DATA_START symbol */
+#ifndef SYM_DATA_END
+#define SYM_DATA_END(name) \
+	.size name, .-name
+#endif
+
+#ifndef END /* deprecated, use SYM_DATA_END */
+#define END(name) SYM_DATA_END(name)
 #endif
 
 #endif
-- 
2.12.0

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web