[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: merge stuff from asm-x86/x86_64/asm_defns.h to asm-x86/asm_defns.h
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 3:03 PM > To: Wu, Feng > Cc: andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: merge stuff from asm-x86/x86_64/asm_defns.h to > asm-x86/asm_defns.h > > >>> On 30.04.14 at 06:56, <feng.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > This patch merges stuff from asm-x86/x86_64/asm_defns.h to > asm-x86/asm_defns.h > > and deletes asm-x86/x86_64/asm_defns.h > > > > Signed-off-by: Feng Wu <feng.wu@xxxxxxxxx> > > Thanks for doing this. To make clear whether you really just moved the > bits unchanged, or also did minor (even if only cosmetic) editing, you > should add a respective statement here. > > > +#define BUILD_COMMON_IRQ() \ > > +__asm__( \ > > + "\n" __ALIGN_STR"\n" \ > > + "common_interrupt:\n\t" \ > > + STR(SAVE_ALL) "\n\t" \ > > + "movq %rsp,%rdi\n\t" \ > > + "callq " STR(do_IRQ) "\n\t" \ > > + "jmp ret_from_intr\n"); > > By re-ordering this patch after the one that moves this to C code, you > could reduce overall churn. Do you mean I should put this patch after the one moving "common-_interrupt" to entry.S? > > > +#ifdef __ASSEMBLY__ > > +# define _ASM_EX(p) p-. > > +#else > > +# define _ASM_EX(p) #p "-." > > +#endif > > + > > #endif /* __X86_ASM_DEFNS_H__ */ > > This clearly shouldn't go at the end of the file, but alongside where it > is being used earlier in the file. > > Jan Thanks, Feng _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |