[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200425191549.GF17645@gate.crashing.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 14:15:49 -0500
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>,
Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>, jgross@...e.com,
x86@...nel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Michael Matz <matz@...e.de>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@...too.org>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Frédéric Pierret (fepitre)
<frederic.pierret@...es-os.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Martin Liška <mliska@...e.cz>,
boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Fix early boot crash on gcc-10, next try
On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 08:53:13PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 01:37:01PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > That is a lot more typing then
> > asm("");
>
> That's why a macro with a hopefully more descriptive name would be
> telling more than a mere asm("").
My point is that you should explain at *every use* of this why you cannot
have tail calls *there*. This is very unusual, after all.
There are *very* few places where you want to prevent tail calls, that's
why there is no attribute for it.
Segher
Powered by blists - more mailing lists