On 23.6.2010 12:37, Andi Kleen wrote:
It also has maintenance costs, e.g. I doubt ctags and cscope
will be able to deal with these kinds of macros, so it has a
high cost for everyone using these tools.
FWIW, patch 16/40 of this series teaches 'make tags' to recognize these
macros:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:19:38PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
, Ian Munsie wrote:
From: Ian Munsieimun...@au1.ibm.com
This patch converts numerous trivial compat syscalls through the generic
kernel code to use the COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE family of macros.
Why? This just makes the code look
, Ian Munsie wrote:
From: Ian Munsieimun...@au1.ibm.com
This patch converts numerous trivial compat syscalls through the generic
kernel code to use the COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE family of macros.
Why? This just makes the code look uglier and the functions harder
to grep for.
-Andi
, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:19:38PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
, Ian Munsie wrote:
From: Ian Munsieimun...@au1.ibm.com
This patch converts numerous trivial compat syscalls through the generic
kernel code to use the COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE family of macros.
Why? This
, Ian Munsie wrote:
From: Ian Munsieimun...@au1.ibm.com
This patch converts numerous trivial compat syscalls through the generic
kernel code to use the COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE family of macros.
Why? This just makes the code look uglier and the functions harder
to grep for.
I guess
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:37:44PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:19:38PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
, Ian Munsie wrote:
From: Ian Munsieimun...@au1.ibm.com
This patch converts numerous trivial compat syscalls through the generic
kernel code
I haven't heard any complains about existing syscalls wrappers.
At least for me they always interrupt my grepping.
What kind of annotations could solve that?
If you put the annotation in a separate macro and leave the original
prototype alone. Then C parsers could still parse it.
-Andi
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 02:35:38PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
I haven't heard any complains about existing syscalls wrappers.
At least for me they always interrupt my grepping.
What kind of annotations could solve that?
If you put the annotation in a separate macro and leave the original
On 06/23/2010 04:38 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
I haven't heard any complains about existing syscalls wrappers.
Then you truly haven't been listening.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
