Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] [PATCH] initial cleanup of ivt.S

[Al Stone <ahs3@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 11:51 +0200, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> Le Vendredi 11 Août 2006 01:12, Al Stone a écrit :
> > This patch reflects a patch I recently posted to the linux-ia64
> > mailing list to do essentially the same thing for ivt.S in upstream
> > source.
> >
> > I've reformatted the contents of the Xen version of ivt.S so that
> > they are now readable on 80-column displays, in accordance with
> > Linux coding standards.  This is really just a first pass at
> > cleaning up this code.  In subsequent passes, I see several things
> > need to be done:
> >
> >    1) Correct any additional typos or misspellings (there were
> >       quite a few cleaned up in this patch).
> >
> >    2) Make the formatting consistent (use the same style of
> >       comments everywhere, same syntax for stop bits,...).
> >
> >    3) Make sure the upstream and Xen ivt.S files are consistent
> >       where they need to be.
> IMHO, ivt.S is too far from linux ivt.S
> A clean-up pass should be done: remove all #ifndef XEN code.
> But you reformatting work is also a good thing.

Just so I understand clearly -- the Xen ivt.S is for the
hypervisor only, correct?  I assume so, so I agree that
the Xen version and Linux are -- and should be -- quite
different.  What I want to do is make sure we don't lose
any improvements made in upstream; e.g., the syscall
code had changed (and improved) quite a bit.

Which reminds me: there were some #if 0 blocks; do you
think we still need or want any of those?  Most of those
looked like they could go away.

> >    4) Do all of the TODOs in the file.
> >
> >    5) Handle the FIXMEs.
> >
> >    6) Go through an optimization pass.
> >
> > In all of this patch, I only changed one line of assembly; there
> > was a 'mov r31=pr;' in entry 23 (daccess_rights) that I changed
> > to 'mov r31=pr;;' which is most likely what was meant.  No other
> > instructions were changed.  Hopefully, I didn't harm any other
> > white space formatting.
> From what I read you could remove the ';;' stop bit.

Probably true.  As I step through the instructions, I'll
get rid of as many of the stop bits as I can (and I'll keep
a special eye on this one :).

Thanks for the feedback.

-- 
Ciao,
al
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Al Stone                                      Alter Ego:
Open Source and Linux R&D                     Debian Developer
Hewlett-Packard Company                       http://www.debian.org
E-mail: ahs3@xxxxxxxxx                        ahs3@xxxxxxxxxx
----------------------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel