Re: [PATCH] x86: KPROBE_ENTRY should be paired wth KPROBE_END

[Jan Beulich]

>Right. I thought of END and ENDPROC as equivalent, so I added the change
>to this patch as a small cleanup only. But if we want this .type
>annotation, what about KPROBE_END? should it include one there too?

Yes, it always bothered me that there's no KPROBE_ENDPROC() (or
alternatively, as this being code is implied by the macro, it didn't do the
annotation by default).

>I'm getting a feeling we would be better off removing KPROBE_ENTRY and
>KPROBE_END if favour of explicitly changing sections in the .S files?
>And using the ENDPROC annotation for all procedures?

It got explicitly added a while back, so there must have been a reason to
*not* do the section adjustments explicitly. And given the current discussion
I'd also assume that more hiding of code in macros is the preferred route.

Jan

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/