From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C8BDC433B4 for ; Thu, 6 May 2021 15:57:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C72BF61104 for ; Thu, 6 May 2021 15:57:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235360AbhEFP6K (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 May 2021 11:58:10 -0400 Received: from linux.microsoft.com ([13.77.154.182]:43362 "EHLO linux.microsoft.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235136AbhEFP6J (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 May 2021 11:58:09 -0400 Received: from [192.168.254.32] (unknown [47.187.223.33]) by linux.microsoft.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1933520B7178; Thu, 6 May 2021 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 linux.microsoft.com 1933520B7178 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.microsoft.com; s=default; t=1620316630; bh=dIXZ2Vx8eJ4U/nLj80jA+pVfCm4eSJoSpqWG4S1035c=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=GEnwZEUPS+ReP3mwe/47tgqKXcVhymUwe0dsBXeVp6jFsvy2fu7SQmVl2hOGGBWnw +XT1TUFx2DDzfsU+Bl7MSV54XXDUxOQzjGv7tbDSeDIO5z5PmaI4XPRbGRF3Drq3Mb i7PDhCtXZmQWNOXTeYmdEIsmiKVvDs6WeRFamNKo= Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 3/4] arm64: Handle miscellaneous functions in .text and .init.text To: Mark Brown Cc: jpoimboe@redhat.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, jthierry@redhat.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org, pasha.tatashin@soleen.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <65cf4dfbc439b010b50a0c46ec500432acde86d6> <20210503173615.21576-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com> <20210503173615.21576-4-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com> <20210506141211.GE4642@sirena.org.uk> <8268fde8-5f3b-0781-971b-b29b5e0916cf@linux.microsoft.com> <20210506153756.GA3377@sirena.org.uk> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" Message-ID: <0ef047c5-d3fe-619e-749d-b10ef3571bcd@linux.microsoft.com> Date: Thu, 6 May 2021 10:57:09 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210506153756.GA3377@sirena.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 5/6/21 10:37 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 10:30:21AM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote: >> On 5/6/21 9:12 AM, Mark Brown wrote: >>> On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 12:36:14PM -0500, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote: > >>> I was thinking it'd be good to do this by modifying SYM_CODE_START() to >>> emit the section, that way nobody can forget to put any SYM_CODE into a >>> special section. That does mean we'd have to first introduce a new > >> OK. I could make the section an argument to SYM_CODE*() so that a developer >> will never miss that. Some documentation may be in order so the guidelines >> are clear. I will do the doc patch separately, if that is alright with >> you all. > > I was thinking to have standard SYM_CODE default to a section then a > variant for anything that cares (like how we have SYM_FUNC_PI and > friends for the PI code for EFI). > OK. >>> We also have a bunch of things like __cpu_soft_restart which don't seem >>> to be called out here but need to be in .idmap.text. > >> It is already in .idmap.text. > > Right, I meant that I was expecting to see things that need to be in a > specific section other than .code.text called out separately here if > we're enumerating them. Though if the annotations are done separately > then this patch wouldn't need to do that calling out at all, it'd be > covered as part of fiddling around with the annotations. > OK. Madhavan