[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190311175929.zojeczu5m4p2gugy@treble>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 12:59:29 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com,
julien.thierry@....com, will.deacon@....com, luto@...capital.net,
mingo@...nel.org, catalin.marinas@....com, james.morse@....com,
valentin.schneider@....com, brgerst@...il.com, luto@...nel.org,
bp@...en8.de, dvlasenk@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dvyukov@...gle.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/20] x86/uaccess/xen: Suppress SMAP warnings
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 02:19:29PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 01:03:34PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 01:00:38PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 12:45:16PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > > XXX: arguably we should rename ANNOTATE_NOSPEC_ALTERNATIVE to
> > > > ANNOTATE_IGNORE_ALTERNATIVE.
>
> > Also this you could get rid of the comment if there were an
> > ANNOTATE_AC_SAFE macro which does a similar thing.
>
> How about we just rename the one annotation we have? I figured it was a
> waste of LoC to do yet another annotation that does the very same thing.
I think ANNOTATE_IGNORE_ALTERNATIVE would hurt readability too. How
about just
#define ANNOTATE_UACCESS_SAFE ANNOTATE_NOSPEC_ALTERNATIVE
or, make both ANNOTATE_UACCESS_SAFE and ANNOTATE_NOSPEC_ALTERNATIVE
defined to the same OBJTOOL_IGNORE_ALTERNATIVE macro.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists