[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170316080257.GA7815@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 09:02:57 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>, hpa@...or.com,
jpoimboe@...hat.com, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] linkage: new macros for functions and data
* Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz> wrote:
> SYM_LOCAL_ALIAS_START -- use where there are two local names for one code
> SYM_ALIAS_START -- use where there are two global names for one code
> SYM_LOCAL_FUNC_START -- use for local functions
> SYM_FUNCTION_START -- use for global functions
> SYM_WEAK_FUNC_START -- use for weak functions
> SYM_ALIAS_END -- the end of LOCALALIASed or ALIASed code
> SYM_FUNCTION_END -- the end of SYM_LOCAL_FUNC_START, SYM_FUNCTION_START, SYM_WEAK_FUNC_START, ...
> SYM_DATA_START -- global data symbol
> SYM_DATA_END -- the end of SYM_DATA_START symbol
This looks mostly good to me, with minor details:
- The mixed 'FUNC' and 'FUNCTION' naming looks a bit confusing - I'd pick one and
use that consistently.
- I'd also make the START/END constructs look more symmetric, i.e. make the
attribute a postfix, not a prefix.
- In fact I'd make the 'alias' notion an attribute as well - what matters mostly
is that it's a function symbol, and that fact is lost from the SYM_ALIAS naming.
I.e. something like this:
SYM_FUNCTION_START
SYM_FUNCTION_START_WEAK
SYM_FUNCTION_START_LOCAL
SYM_FUNCTION_START_ALIAS
SYM_FUNCTION_START_LOCAL_ALIAS
...
SYM_FUNCTION_END
SYM_DATA_START
SYM_DATA_END
Note how simple and structured looking the nomenclature is when grouped in such a
way, how easy it is to verify at a glance, and how easy it is to extend with new
postfixes.
( In theory we could also make the attributes a real macro argument in the future,
should the number of attributes increase significantly. )
Does this look good to everyone?
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists