[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 04/16] generic-sections: add section core helpers
- To: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx>
- From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 15:22:19 +0200
- Cc: gnomes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ia64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, realmz6@xxxxxxxxx, linux-sh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx, linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, platform-driver-x86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jcmvbkbc@xxxxxxxxx, paulus@xxxxxxxxx, hpa@xxxxxxxxx, masami.hiramatsu.pt@xxxxxxxxxxx, mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, markus.heiser@xxxxxxxxxxx, sparclinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, msalter@xxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, x86@xxxxxxxxxx, anil.s.keshavamurthy@xxxxxxxxx, fontana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mingo@xxxxxxxxxx, catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx, dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-xtensa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx, arnd@xxxxxxxx, linux-kbuild@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx, will.deacon@xxxxxxx, pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx, rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx, acme@xxxxxxxxxx, jbaron@xxxxxxxxxx, ananth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, bp@xxxxxxxxx, jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx, linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mcb30@xxxxxxxx, linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jgross@xxxxxxxx, chris@xxxxxxxxxx, pebolle@xxxxxxxxxx, tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx, ananth@xxxxxxxxxx, paul.gortmaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx>, mmarek@xxxxxxxx, david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx, jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx, jkosina@xxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, korea.drzix@xxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 13:22:53 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 05:33:38PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 23:38:44 -0700
> "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > Ah, thing is we use this for both linktables and section ranges.
> > > > > > Or do we want macros for both that do the same thing ?
> > > > >
> > > > > I think it would make the code using it more readable.
> > > >
> > > > Alrighty... so:
> > > >
> > > > LINKTABLE_START()
> > > > LINKTABLE_END()
> > > >
> > > > SECTION_RANGE_START()
> > > > SECTION_RANGE_END()
> > > >
> > > > And these macros do the exact same thing. Ie, nothing shared. Right?
> > >
> > > Yeah I think so. Internally they would probably be aliased to the
> > > same common definition (unless you had some type check or something),
> > > but user would know about such details.
> >
> > What name should we use for such common macro definition ?
>
>
> Ah, not really sure. I guess the "link table" is some kind of
> section range? I haven't actually looked closely at both of them
> in the subsequent patches. It matters less if it's not expected
> to be used as an API though.
>
OK well, going with LINUX_SECTION_START() so we'll have:
#define LINKTABLE_START LINUX_SECTION_START
#define LINKTABLE_END LINUX_SECTION_END
#define SECTION_RANGE_START LINUX_SECTION_START
#define SECTION_RANGE_END LINUX_SECTION_END
Is that OK?
Luis
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
