Re: Remove __end_entry_SYSENTER_compat?

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:48:03AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > Hm, I'd argue that the old code is much clearer: we need both the start and > the > end of a function and have the properly named symbols for that. > > That entry_SYSCALL_compat() happens to start just where >

Re: Remove __end_entry_SYSENTER_compat?

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:48:03AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > Hm, I'd argue that the old code is much clearer: we need both the start and > the > end of a function and have the properly named symbols for that. > > That entry_SYSCALL_compat() happens to start just where >

Re: Remove __end_entry_SYSENTER_compat?

* Borislav Petkov wrote: > Anyone think this is an OK-ish idea? > > It saves us the global symbol but requires the two functions to remained > glued together. :-\ > > --- > diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64_compat.S > b/arch/x86/entry/entry_64_compat.S > index

Re: Remove __end_entry_SYSENTER_compat?

* Borislav Petkov wrote: > Anyone think this is an OK-ish idea? > > It saves us the global symbol but requires the two functions to remained > glued together. :-\ > > --- > diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64_compat.S > b/arch/x86/entry/entry_64_compat.S > index e1721dafbcb1..262519da8661

Remove __end_entry_SYSENTER_compat?

Anyone think this is an OK-ish idea? It saves us the global symbol but requires the two functions to remained glued together. :-\ --- diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64_compat.S b/arch/x86/entry/entry_64_compat.S index e1721dafbcb1..262519da8661 100644 --- a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64_compat.S

Remove __end_entry_SYSENTER_compat?

Anyone think this is an OK-ish idea? It saves us the global symbol but requires the two functions to remained glued together. :-\ --- diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64_compat.S b/arch/x86/entry/entry_64_compat.S index e1721dafbcb1..262519da8661 100644 --- a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64_compat.S