From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752337AbdDJTfR (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:35:17 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:53874 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751656AbdDJTfQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:35:16 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 230CBC04B937 Authentication-Results: ext-mx07.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx07.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=jpoimboe@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 230CBC04B937 Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:35:12 -0500 From: Josh Poimboeuf To: Jiri Slaby Cc: mingo@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Pavel Machek , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Boris Ostrovsky , Juergen Gross , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/10] x86: assembly, use SYM_FUNC_END for functions Message-ID: <20170410193512.d67vefxedoockybg@treble> References: <9ea5e137-61f9-dccc-bb9d-ac3ff86e5867@suse.cz> <20170320123222.15453-1-jslaby@suse.cz> <20170320123222.15453-3-jslaby@suse.cz> <20170322142610.bo5c6wzlbqnxrgt3@treble> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0.1 (2016-04-01) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.31]); Mon, 10 Apr 2017 19:35:15 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 01:23:46PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote: > On 03/22/2017, 04:44 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote: > > On 03/22/2017, 03:26 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 01:32:15PM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote: > >>> Somewhere END was used to end a function, elsewhere, nothing was used. > >>> So unify it and mark them all by SYM_FUNC_END. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby > >> > >> For me these patches would be easier to review if the SYM_FUNC_START and > >> SYM_FUNC_END pairs for a given function are done in the same patch. > > > > This patchset was intended to make everything paired with minimum > > changes. I certainly can change also counter-elements of each > > added/changed one if you prefer. > > So do really you want me to use the new macros while I am > adding/changing the counter-macro? Is there anything else blocking the > merge of the patches? The code should be in a mergeable state after each patch. If only patches 1-3 were merged, the code would be in an inconsistent state, with some functions having confusing ENTRY/SYM_FUNC_END pairs. That complicates git history and also makes it harder to review each patch. It would be cleaner to separate things out. First, convert ENTRY/END functions to use ENDPROC, which is a minor bug fix. Then they can be converted to the new SYM_FUNC_START/END macros in a separate patch. -- Josh