Re: [PATCH v4 04/16] generic-sections: add section core helpers

[Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>]

On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 15:22:19 +0200
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 05:33:38PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 23:38:44 -0700
> > "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> wrote:  
> > > > > > > Ah, thing is we use this for both linktables and section ranges.
> > > > > > > Or do we want macros for both that do the same thing ?    
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think it would make the code using it more readable.    
> > > > >
> > > > > Alrighty... so:
> > > > >
> > > > > LINKTABLE_START()
> > > > > LINKTABLE_END()
> > > > >
> > > > > SECTION_RANGE_START()
> > > > > SECTION_RANGE_END()
> > > > >
> > > > > And these macros do the exact same thing. Ie, nothing shared. Right?    
> > > >
> > > > Yeah I think so. Internally they would probably be aliased to the
> > > > same common definition (unless you had some type check or something),
> > > > but user would know about such details.    
> > > 
> > > What name should we use for such common macro definition ?  
> > 
> > 
> > Ah, not really sure. I guess the "link table" is some kind of
> > section range? I haven't actually looked closely at both of them
> > in the subsequent patches. It matters less if it's not expected
> > to be used as an API though.
> >   
> 
> OK well, going with LINUX_SECTION_START() so we'll have:
> 
> #define LINKTABLE_START		LINUX_SECTION_START
> #define LINKTABLE_END		LINUX_SECTION_END
> 
> #define SECTION_RANGE_START	LINUX_SECTION_START
> #define SECTION_RANGE_END	LINUX_SECTION_END
> 
> Is that OK?

I guess so, without having seen the updated, although I don't see why
you'd not just

#define LINKTABLE_START SECTION_RANGE_START