Re: [PATCH 1/2] ix86: adjust asm constraints in atomic64 wrappers

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 01/18/2012 08:57 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > For functions with nonstandard calling conventions it is normal to
> > declare them as void foo(void);
>
> For the above, I'd like to keep atomic64_t in the signature. Would
> void foo(atomic64_t, ...) be acceptable?

Sounds reasonable to me.  It doesn't matter much.

>
>> It may be a good idea to prefix these symbols with __ though.
>
> But not in this patch. (Can't resist to add that if you think it
> should be this way, why did you not make it a condition for accepting
> theoriginal patch, which you committed?)
>

I didn't say "condition", I said "it may be a good idea".  Agreed in not 
in this patch.

The other bit in all of that is that, guess what, some people with solid 
track records, like yourself, I generally trust to do things mostly 
right, and so I don't actually scrutinize quite as in depth as I would 
patches from other people.  Every now and then it means I stumble upon 
something later after I have thought about it more.  This is by and 
large fine.

	-hpa
--
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/