Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: merge stuff from asm-x86/x86_64/asm_defns.h to asm-x86/asm_defns.h

["Wu, Feng" <feng.wu@xxxxxxxxx>]

> -----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