From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from desiato.infradead.org (desiato.infradead.org [90.155.92.199]) (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 8FC0119995D for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2024 15:25:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.92.199 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728487514; cv=none; b=WKnC8DeGdX8XHoZo4w0IiDy+JSm0zpwmOJc7HW2GNs+7Bwubw5kdwmSQfvi/juY0XtuedZGHdSEV6mtNWNcL7kt83o0UsCly80Q7gE7WM3v1W0cCD1w/3Niy+IEBV/eVeWogHtfohSwzvEpChwmMWGf7YYeJTvgVZf1uMKrvifo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728487514; c=relaxed/simple; bh=QENbgIvXk3wyj3McRWNnfwWPHAA9ZzPsTv3Bb2wR3WI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=jE+gdgiXBOkks40v6tqNW5pkiTDtNTANGs5W99UybBJR59bCPQ+fOd4L4mRsw8lMf2NKXQi1zbOaSnvOdPSeOkadQ9IJaesB5NHeEpYKVqhQ1L+uEd4EqbGTTa6VWrA9T6BVoiUyt11ESHTEltMg+euMCpNtC1vEdFoIgUp+F2c= 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=GxOpOsCK; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.92.199 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="GxOpOsCK" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=desiato.20200630; 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=kiH7BYdNDBsNBr7QSc0XYJTo5y7rZJTPwYxCfSUiGAk=; b=GxOpOsCK8n75l4Vkfce5QuZ4ex TpMQ7R1QgH9VB/9lykIKxdl1Z1zqx1HDTQq30Hy9H1oFp97TJ3YkyFfXa/9NC3WxLnC8bU+52Q7hc PtIplB8p0mDdLk/PP/cuBTnbvGSRw4NxFcEcVZB5Hc52ZXaqJlN6wUW3Pvtfykihh317suQ7U3AnS Y4Oo8hOuAnpofveazeK3djv/QdHKmbTzqauu616GjmFvOGxDoc/SUED/7oYsL/B87fq1jQJM2ZgIa 5WJQTNxejpsrlZP797Z+ko3BcoYxHtKB/xmeBJr0AtiIM/2cBbRCKjnTLQvVvgeXNAjUa4Zofnv/e xVwBJHow==; Received: from j130084.upc-j.chello.nl ([24.132.130.84] helo=noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net) by desiato.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1syYYi-00000004z9v-0wsL; Wed, 09 Oct 2024 15:25:04 +0000 Received: by noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9111F30057A; Wed, 9 Oct 2024 17:25:03 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 17:25:03 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Josh Poimboeuf Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alyssa.milburn@intel.com, scott.d.constable@intel.com, joao@overdrivepizza.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, jose.marchesi@oracle.com, hjl.tools@gmail.com, ndesaulniers@google.com, samitolvanen@google.com, nathan@kernel.org, ojeda@kernel.org, kees@kernel.org, alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/14] objtool/x86: Add .tail_call_sites Message-ID: <20241009152503.GR17263@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20240927194856.096003183@infradead.org> <20240927194924.730517860@infradead.org> <20240927234247.tm4zsho6wdc5gmby@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: <20240927234247.tm4zsho6wdc5gmby@treble> On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 04:42:47PM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 09:49:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > @@ -893,7 +893,6 @@ static int create_cfi_sections(struct ob > > > > sec = find_section_by_name(file->elf, ".cfi_sites"); > > if (sec) { > > - INIT_LIST_HEAD(&file->call_list); > > Hm, why exactly are we re-initing the list head anyway in these > boilerplate create_*_sections() functions? I'm guessing that backfired > here. I can't figure out a reason why we'd doing that anyway. Yeah, I can't remember where that came from, nor why I removed this particular one :/ > I'm also wondering why we made these boilerplate function names plural > "sections" when they only create a single section :-) Because elf_create_section_pair() creates two section_s_, right?