From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [90.155.50.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35050161313 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2024 07:59:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.50.34 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728460789; cv=none; b=Cycaw0DFWn8XTqBghHcScVT3u29fUq+3Mzb/JBZpH+ramD0ecbImuPCcnubC1xWZV5WokaL4GVCMHJdQ3rWhMGW+hLd5SQTJEJzEFkLZnGbXrQzTUCSWBHYEeKwSzQBLGHkDnQ2xezJ4EdmU25lSp85ltDWtU/eoRnKwJ6Eq1v8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728460789; c=relaxed/simple; bh=NtkkC9cKU1K+qVn9JLh2QDpPskRJX9/onIMcTZpR/4Q=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=F2xLi5In6rf62mpwsjZ352GICy/pWOBmyypH7J/xBa3MBEcE+DEpbZJXs1QkGXznIUppcRJPtTwpt3f6UmjNZeC2UyFeB9l36rxgjUFQhlovfjBB7Ftg0ZMbExGAqZwZ1ElTMyEFCC9aBaGKmWoqGo4h5X9FzQKIC7LWhFIg1HQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=nIiQyS/w; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.50.34 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="nIiQyS/w" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=c9WmE5c7tLHVrpCuyh/YSp61LyOD2QR9c/D3p4uyZWA=; b=nIiQyS/wTdP+r7h27/m6FGr/zN 5aERAKz1SZQmcXLQliL4InHMTn0TTtozBb02QBxlIjerVvNgPhpCl0Jp60HexwC9ckp6Lb04PV8vD zeFgCqJ9FKI4hNIuCGIy99jpZnrPy/KvfyAeLy+Q+tAui7w/MgyCw/r51kzrSN1LQQ6m17Pq5Xg2+ jmGjRRfE6dHppGzg0V5C42RF8F9rLEJm0Q6ReiVImzb5MbKO/i5a+303Cta3PkHmuqSgBNr2FqwSM iEjnGiK5TmPBcSQuzz38s/7CXRgdlRUaJjh/1LG5ebzDIeP2ylx5VspCWKwRB5uR8EwHIURRpiLIS NbTNvaLg==; Received: from j130084.upc-j.chello.nl ([24.132.130.84] helo=noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net) by casper.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1syRbg-00000004KOi-2Y03; Wed, 09 Oct 2024 07:59:41 +0000 Received: by noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BCC1A3004AF; Wed, 9 Oct 2024 09:59:40 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 09:59:40 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Josh Poimboeuf Cc: bp@alien8.de, david.kaplan@amd.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] x86: Clean up default rethunk warning Message-ID: <20241009075940.GI17263@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20241007083210.043925135@infradead.org> <20241007083844.119369498@infradead.org> <20241007173345.yokak3mlnqpsuxty@treble> <20241008072502.GC14587@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20241008164514.ky7ybaoitytvbwlp@treble> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20241008164514.ky7ybaoitytvbwlp@treble> On Tue, Oct 08, 2024 at 09:45:14AM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Tue, Oct 08, 2024 at 09:25:02AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 10:33:45AM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 10:32:12AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > Replace the funny __warn_thunk thing with a more regular > > > > WARN_ON_ONCE(), and simplify the ifdeffery. > > > > > > > > Notably this avoids RET from having recursive RETs (once from the > > > > thunk and once from the C function) -- recursive RET makes my head > > > > hurt for no good reason. > > > > > > This could use an explanation for why the ifdefs can be removed and why > > > the alternative can be removed. > > > > The alternative is in the WARN_ONCE now. > > Ah, sneaky... It should really be called WARN_ONCE_AFTER_ALTERNATIVES or > something. Yeah, I suppose it should.