[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F6136C2ED@ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 16:05:43 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Sergey Senozhatsky" <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 00/14] Fix wrong %pF and %pS printk format specifier
usages
>> if (not_a_function_descriptor(ptr))
>> return ptr;
>
> I'm not sure if it's possible on ia64/ppc64/parisc64
> to reliably detect if it's a function descriptor or not.
Agreed. I don't know how to write this test (without changing the compiler to
put the pointers in a separate section ... and then changing the module loader
to keep a list of all these sections).
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists