On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 13:28 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 19 August 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > +static inline long kvm_hypercall1(unsigned int nr, unsigned long p1) > > +{ > > + register unsigned long hcall asm ("r0") = nr; > > + register unsigned long arg1 asm ("r3") = p1; > > + register long ret asm ("r11"); > > + > > + asm volatile(".long %1" > > + : "=r"(ret) > > + : "i"(KVM_HYPERCALL_BIN), "r"(hcall), "r"(arg1) > > + : "r4", "r5", "r6", "r7", "r8", > > + "r9", "r10", "r12", "cc"); > > + return ret; > > +} > > What is the reasoning for making the calling convention different from > all the existing hcall interfaces here? > > pseries uses r3 for the hcall number, lv1 and beat use r11, so using > r0 just for the sake of being different seems counterintuitive.
There was a really good reason at the time, but I can't seem to remember it now. ;) We're thinking about it. -- Hollis Blanchard IBM Linux Technology Center _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev