Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: Use pt_regs pointer in do_device_not_available()

[Tejun Heo]

Brian Gerst wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Brian Gerst wrote:
>>> I don't quite follow what you are trying to say here.  Are you saying
>>> use the same calling convention for the exception handlers (anything
>>> called from error_code) and system calls?
>> Yeap.
> 
> Doesn't make sense to me, two very fundamentally different things.  I
> supposed you could eliminate the error_code parameter, but that's alot
> of work to remove just one instruction.

I don't think they're fundamentally different.  Well, I guess it all
depends on how you look at it.  Those are just functions called after
kernel entry with register stack frame as argument.  Some might have
more fields others might not.

I don't think having two conventions is too bad, so whether to do this
or not is basically a cleanup decision.  Eh... if you feel like doing
it, please go ahead.  If not, well, maybe somebody will do it someday
(or not).  :-)

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/