From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 05/28] x86/asm/entry: annotate THUNKs Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 12:05:01 +0100 Message-ID: <20190212110501.GB30028@zn.tnic> References: <20190130124711.12463-1-jslaby@suse.cz> <20190130124711.12463-6-jslaby@suse.cz> <20190209112551.GA5089@zn.tnic> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jiri Slaby Cc: mingo@redhat.com, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 11:27:19AM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote: > Yes, they do not end up in the symbol table. But the macros make clear > where is the start of the function and especially where is the end > (something like closing bracket '}' in C). If you prefer not annotating > local symbols, I can of course drop it from everywhere. But to me it > looks more readable to see "here it starts" and "here it ends", still > without generating anything to the symbol table. Agreed. Boundary annotation makes sense. Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([5.9.137.197]:36738 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727976AbfBLLFI (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2019 06:05:08 -0500 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 12:05:01 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 05/28] x86/asm/entry: annotate THUNKs Message-ID: <20190212110501.GB30028@zn.tnic> References: <20190130124711.12463-1-jslaby@suse.cz> <20190130124711.12463-6-jslaby@suse.cz> <20190209112551.GA5089@zn.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Jiri Slaby Cc: mingo@redhat.com, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org Message-ID: <20190212110501.dhadhK6BRdGOefAcnJ6HePa1cNNIeMVycf9Ix7IHXKI@z> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 11:27:19AM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote: > Yes, they do not end up in the symbol table. But the macros make clear > where is the start of the function and especially where is the end > (something like closing bracket '}' in C). If you prefer not annotating > local symbols, I can of course drop it from everywhere. But to me it > looks more readable to see "here it starts" and "here it ends", still > without generating anything to the symbol table. Agreed. Boundary annotation makes sense. Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.