Re: [RFC PATCH 02/11] Add fastcall to do_IRQ for i386

2008-01-07 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > I thought we had dropped support for the non-REGPARM case, so why don't > we just make it work for REGPARM and be done with it? > I'm working on that ;-) -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the

Re: [RFC PATCH 02/11] Add fastcall to do_IRQ for i386

2008-01-07 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, H. Peter Anvin wrote: I thought we had dropped support for the non-REGPARM case, so why don't we just make it work for REGPARM and be done with it? I'm working on that ;-) -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a

Re: [RFC PATCH 02/11] Add fastcall to do_IRQ for i386

2008-01-06 Thread H. Peter Anvin
Steven Rostedt wrote: On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: I would propose to try to see how we can #ifdef two different __mcount assembly functions that would prepare the stack appropriately for each REGPARM cases. I have to confess that I've been testing this mostly on x86_64,

Re: [RFC PATCH 02/11] Add fastcall to do_IRQ for i386

2008-01-06 Thread H. Peter Anvin
Steven Rostedt wrote: On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: I would propose to try to see how we can #ifdef two different __mcount assembly functions that would prepare the stack appropriately for each REGPARM cases. I have to confess that I've been testing this mostly on x86_64,

Re: [RFC PATCH 02/11] Add fastcall to do_IRQ for i386

2008-01-03 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > I would propose to try to see how we can #ifdef two different __mcount > assembly functions that would prepare the stack appropriately for each > REGPARM cases. > I have to confess that I've been testing this mostly on x86_64, which doesn't have

Re: [RFC PATCH 02/11] Add fastcall to do_IRQ for i386

2008-01-03 Thread Mathieu Desnoyers
* Steven Rostedt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > MCOUNT will disable the regparm parameters of the i386 compile > options. When doing so, this breaks the prototype of do_IRQ > where the fastcall must be explicitly called. > > Also fixed some whitespace damage in the call to do_IRQ. > I would

Re: [RFC PATCH 02/11] Add fastcall to do_IRQ for i386

2008-01-03 Thread Mathieu Desnoyers
* Steven Rostedt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: MCOUNT will disable the regparm parameters of the i386 compile options. When doing so, this breaks the prototype of do_IRQ where the fastcall must be explicitly called. Also fixed some whitespace damage in the call to do_IRQ. I would propose to

Re: [RFC PATCH 02/11] Add fastcall to do_IRQ for i386

2008-01-03 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: I would propose to try to see how we can #ifdef two different __mcount assembly functions that would prepare the stack appropriately for each REGPARM cases. I have to confess that I've been testing this mostly on x86_64, which doesn't have the

[RFC PATCH 02/11] Add fastcall to do_IRQ for i386

2008-01-02 Thread Steven Rostedt
MCOUNT will disable the regparm parameters of the i386 compile options. When doing so, this breaks the prototype of do_IRQ where the fastcall must be explicitly called. Also fixed some whitespace damage in the call to do_IRQ. Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---

[RFC PATCH 02/11] Add fastcall to do_IRQ for i386

2008-01-02 Thread Steven Rostedt
MCOUNT will disable the regparm parameters of the i386 compile options. When doing so, this breaks the prototype of do_IRQ where the fastcall must be explicitly called. Also fixed some whitespace damage in the call to do_IRQ. Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---