public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To: Julien Thierry <jthierry@redhat.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	mhelsley@vmware.com, mbenes@suse.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] objtool: orc_gen: Move orc_entry out of instruction structure
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 09:28:37 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200730142837.a425acrg2sdbryy4@treble> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0280367f-3839-acad-799a-ecc2756c1846@redhat.com>

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 02:45:46PM +0100, Julien Thierry wrote:
> > > But I agree the proposed code is not ideal and on the other we've tried
> > > avoiding #ifdef in the code. Ideally I'd have an empty orc_entry definition
> > > when SUBCMD_ORC is not implemented.
> > > 
> > > Would you have a suggested approach to do that?
> > 
> > How ugly is having that:
> > 
> > struct orc_entry { };
> > 
> > ?
> 
> Not sure I am understanding the suggestion. Without #ifdef this will
> conflict with the definition in <asm/orc_types.h> for x86. Or every arch
> needs to provide their own <asm/orc_types.h> and definition of struct
> orc_entry, even if they don't implement the orc subcommand.
> 
> Which would be preferable? #ifdef? or arch provided definition? (or
> something I have not thought of)

If we wanted to get fancy we could add a 'struct insn_arch_specific
arch' field, and then require every arch to declare it.

But I think just an #ifdef in the 'instruction' struct declaration would
be easiest for now.

-- 
Josh


  reply	other threads:[~2020-07-30 14:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-07-30  9:41 [PATCH v3 0/4] Remove dependency of check subcmd upon orc Julien Thierry
2020-07-30  9:41 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] objtool: Move object file loading out of check Julien Thierry
2020-07-30 14:09   ` Josh Poimboeuf
2020-07-30 14:42     ` Julien Thierry
2020-07-30  9:41 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] objtool: Move orc outside " Julien Thierry
2020-07-30  9:57   ` peterz
2020-07-30 12:40     ` Julien Thierry
2020-07-30 13:22       ` peterz
2020-07-30 13:29         ` Julien Thierry
2020-07-30 14:15           ` Josh Poimboeuf
2020-07-30 14:44             ` Julien Thierry
2020-07-31  7:56               ` Miroslav Benes
2020-07-31  8:19                 ` Julien Thierry
2020-07-30  9:41 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] objtool: orc: Skip setting orc_entry for non-text sections Julien Thierry
2020-07-30  9:41 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] objtool: orc_gen: Move orc_entry out of instruction structure Julien Thierry
2020-07-30 10:03   ` peterz
2020-07-30 12:40     ` Julien Thierry
2020-07-30 13:33       ` peterz
2020-07-30 13:45         ` Julien Thierry
2020-07-30 14:28           ` Josh Poimboeuf [this message]
2020-07-30 14:06 ` [PATCH v3 0/4] Remove dependency of check subcmd upon orc Josh Poimboeuf
2020-07-30 14:42   ` Julien Thierry
2020-07-30 15:05     ` Josh Poimboeuf

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200730142837.a425acrg2sdbryy4@treble \
    --to=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
    --cc=jthierry@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mbenes@suse.cz \
    --cc=mhelsley@vmware.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox