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=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham 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 8BABEC10F0E for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 16:27:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 576602084F for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 16:27:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726547AbfDIQ1x (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Apr 2019 12:27:53 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:40848 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726415AbfDIQ1w (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Apr 2019 12:27:52 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01AC715AB; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 09:27:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.1.197.45] (e112298-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.197.45]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D3A93F68F; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 09:27:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [RFC 3/6] objtool: arm64: Adapt the stack frame checks and the section analysis for the arm architecture To: Mark Rutland , Peter Zijlstra Cc: Raphael Gault , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, jpoimboe@redhat.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com References: <20190409135243.12424-1-raphael.gault@arm.com> <20190409135243.12424-4-raphael.gault@arm.com> <20190409161204.GS11158@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20190409162420.GB32587@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com> From: Julien Thierry Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 17:27:48 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190409162420.GB32587@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/04/2019 17:24, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 06:12:04PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> >> I'm just doing my initial read-through,.. however >> >> On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 02:52:40PM +0100, Raphael Gault wrote: >>> + if (!(sec->sh.sh_flags & SHF_EXECINSTR) >>> + && (strcmp(sec->name, ".altinstr_replacement") || !IGNORE_SHF_EXEC_FLAG)) >>> continue; >> >> could you please not format code like that. Operators go at the end of >> the line, and continuation should match the indentation of the opening >> paren. So the above would look like: >> >>> + if (!(sec->sh.sh_flags & SHF_EXECINSTR) && >>> + (strcmp(sec->name, ".altinstr_replacement") || !IGNORE_SHF_EXEC_FLAG)) >>> continue; >> >> You appear to be doing that quit consistently, and it is against style. > > Raphael, as a heads-up, ./scripts/checkpatch.pl can catch issues like > this. You can run it over a list of patches, so for a patch series you > can run: > > $ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl *.patch > > ... and hopefully most of the output will be reasonable. > For this particular case, checkpatch only warns about it if you pass it "--strict" option. So in general it might be useful to include this option at least for the first pass at including large pieces of code. Cheers, -- Julien Thierry