From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932182AbbHFIIB (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 6 Aug 2015 04:08:01 -0400
Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com ([209.85.212.180]:38812 "EHLO
	mail-wi0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S932151AbbHFIHz (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 6 Aug 2015 04:07:55 -0400
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 10:07:50 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>,
        Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@petrovitsch.priv.at>, x86@kernel.org,
        live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/21] Compile-time stack validation
Message-ID: <20150806080750.GA10604@gmail.com>
References: <cover.1438093915.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <cover.1438093915.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:

> This is v8 of the compile-time stack validation patch set, based on the
> tip/master branch.
> 
> The frame pointer macros are still called FRAME and ENDFRAME because I
> don't think we converged on anything else yet.  Otherwise I tried to
> address all the other review comments from v7.

So I think:

	FRAME_START
	FRAME_END

would be OK.

They could be added as new aliases, keeping the old ones as well, while in the new 
patches you should use this new form.

Thanks,

	Ingo