[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9925be9a-2e24-7ab4-4d7e-cb8f62c422e7@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 13:19:30 +0100
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To: Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>, arm@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de
Cc: linux@...linux.org.uk, ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org,
nicolas.pitre@...aro.org, marc.zyngier@....com,
behanw@...verseincode.com, keescook@...omium.org,
Bernhard.Rosenkranzer@...aro.org, mka@...omium.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v2] bus: arm-cci: use asm unreachable
On 08/05/18 12:32, Stefan Agner wrote:
> Mixing asm and C code is not recommended in a naked function by
> gcc and leads to an error when using clang:
> drivers/bus/arm-cci.c:2107:2: error: non-ASM statement in naked
> function is not supported
> unreachable();
> ^
>
> While the function is marked __naked it actually properly return
> in asm. There is no need for the unreachable() call.
The commit title is a bit out-of-date now (I guess it could just be
something like "remove unnecessary unreachable()" now), but the rest
looks OK to me - even GCC clearly doesn't expect anything beyond the asm
to be reachable anyway since the lack of epilogue includes the lack of
any compiler-generated return. I've checked that GCC 7.2 generates
identical object files before and after, other than (for obvious
reasons) the line numbers generated by WANT_WARN_ON_SLOWPATH for all the
WARN()s appearing later in the file.
Reviewed-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
> Suggested-by: Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>
> Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@...aro.org>
> ---
> drivers/bus/arm-cci.c | 2 --
> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/bus/arm-cci.c b/drivers/bus/arm-cci.c
> index 443e4c3fd357..b8184a903583 100644
> --- a/drivers/bus/arm-cci.c
> +++ b/drivers/bus/arm-cci.c
> @@ -371,8 +371,6 @@ asmlinkage void __naked cci_enable_port_for_self(void)
> [sizeof_struct_cpu_port] "i" (sizeof(struct cpu_port)),
> [sizeof_struct_ace_port] "i" (sizeof(struct cci_ace_port)),
> [offsetof_port_phys] "i" (offsetof(struct cci_ace_port, phys)) );
> -
> - unreachable();
> }
>
> /**
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists