Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 08/23] x86: add multiboot2 protocol support

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 14/08/15 11:03, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 13.08.15 at 21:22, <daniel.kiper@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 03:17:48PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 04:29:03PM +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > > > @@ -34,6 +57,42 @@ multiboot1_header_start:       /*** MULTIBOOT1 HEADER ****/
> > > >           .long   -(MULTIBOOT_HEADER_MAGIC + MULTIBOOT_HEADER_FLAGS)
> > > >   multiboot1_header_end:
> > > >
> > > > +/*** MULTIBOOT2 HEADER ****/
> > > > +/* Some ideas are taken from grub-2.00/grub-core/tests/boot/kernel-i386.S 
> > > > file. */
> > > > +        .align  MULTIBOOT2_HEADER_ALIGN
> > > > +
> > > > +.Lmultiboot2_header:
> > > How come you use .L? It makes this hidden while the multiboot1 headers
> > > are visible? Makes it a bit harder to see the contents of this under
> > > an debugger.
> > Good point. IIRC, Jan asked about that. I will remove .L if he does not
> > object.
> For this particular one I think it's okay to drop the .L, but generally
> I'd like to see .L used more widely for any auxiliary labels (i.e. only
> "main" labels - function entry points and data objects - should have
> their labels present in the final symbol table).
In general I would agree.

However, the multiboot 1 and 2 headers are special.  They are binary 
data included in the .text section, so having non-local lables makes the 
disassembly easier to read.
~Andrew

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel