* Denys Vlasenko <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 03/24/2015 07:44 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > From 11e2761ba0969466299b7109eba749d2292e8796 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
> > Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 19:18:41 +0100
> > Subject: [PATCH] x86/asm/entry/64: Merge the field offset into the
> > THREAD_INFO() macro
> >
> > Before:
> >
> > TI_sysenter_return+THREAD_INFO(%rsp,3*8),%r10d
> >
> > After:
> >
> > movl THREAD_INFO(TI_sysenter_return, %rsp, 3*8), %r10d
> >
> > to turn it into a clear thread_info accessor.
>
> Good idea, I also wanted to do this.
> I propose a more C-like order of arguments instead.
> In C, field names are on the right: obj.field, ptr->field.
>
> THREAD_INFO(%rsp, 3*8, TI_field_name)
>
> would suggest to the reader a pseudo-C construct:
>
> THREAD_INFO(sp, offset)->field_name
So I picked that order, because the C code we want to emulate here
visually is:
thread_info->field_name
and visually this order represents just that:
THREAD_INFO(TI_field_name, ...)
" ,%reg, offset" in that sense is just a 'detail' to how to access
thread_info.
That order also resembles the assembly format more, which is usually
in field(reg) order, i.e.:
THREAD_INFO(field, %reg, ...)
Hm?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
