From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicholas Piggin Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 03:00:24 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 04/16] generic-sections: add section core helpers Message-Id: <20160826130024.0ad51d33@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> List-Id: References: <1471642454-5679-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@kernel.org> <1471642454-5679-5-git-send-email-mcgrof@kernel.org> <20160823112633.7d482e62@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20160823173306.GA3296@wotan.suse.de> <20160824135141.2c8f06ec@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20160824201253.GS3296@wotan.suse.de> <20160825120633.057b2f6f@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20160825060540.GX3296@wotan.suse.de> <20160825165121.45d26fb0@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20160825175239.GB3296@wotan.suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20160825175239.GB3296@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, jkosina@suse.cz, benh@kernel.crashing.org, ming.lei@canonical.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com, paul.gortmaker@windriver.com, paulus@samba.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au, hpa@zytor.com, masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com, mchehab@osg.samsung.com, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, markus.heiser@darmarit.de, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, will.deacon@arm.com, korea.drzix@gmail.com, x86@kernel.org, anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com, fontana@sharpeleven.org, mingo@redhat.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, dvhart@infradead.org, dwmw2@infradead.org, david.vrabel@citrix.com, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, pali.rohar@gmail.com, keescook@chromium.org, arnd@arndb On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 19:52:39 +0200 "Luis R. Rodriguez" wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 04:51:21PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > > On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 08:05:40 +0200 > > "Luis R. Rodriguez" wrote: > > > > Oh, that makes more sense. The SECTION stuff and custom sections was > > > > confusing me. I would prefer just to drop all the LINUX_SECTION naming > > > > and make it match the functionality you're using. For example: > > > > > > > > +DEFINE_LINKTABLE(struct jump_entry, __jump_table); > > > > + > > > > /* mutex to protect coming/going of the the jump_label table */ > > > > static DEFINE_MUTEX(jump_label_mutex); > > > > > > > > @@ -274,8 +277,6 @@ static void __jump_label_update(struct static_key *key, > > > > > > > > void __init jump_label_init(void) > > > > { > > > > - struct jump_entry *iter_start = __start___jump_table; > > > > - struct jump_entry *iter_stop = __stop___jump_table; > > > > struct static_key *key = NULL; > > > > struct jump_entry *iter; > > > > > > > > @@ -292,9 +293,10 @@ void __init jump_label_init(void) > > > > return; > > > > > > > > jump_label_lock(); > > > > - jump_label_sort_entries(iter_start, iter_stop); > > > > + jump_label_sort_entries(LINUX_SECTION_START(__jump_table), > > > > + LINUX_SECTION_END(__jump_table)); > > > > > > > > Now I think this is a fine abstraction to have. > > > > > > OK will keep this one. > > > > > > > I think it would look > > > > even cleaner if you had: > > > > > > > > LINKTABLE_START(__jump_table) > > > > LINKTABLE_END(__jump_table) > > > > > > > > Then do we need to even have the LINUX_SECTION middle man at all? > > > > > > 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. Thanks, Nick