[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a0G8zOD-DJVOxWWwHgGUWQC2yxgMMKYrBQTgVLAicC7pw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 13:34:33 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
Parisc List <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 06/10] asm-generic: Refactor dereference_[kernel]_function_descriptor()
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 1:20 PM Christophe Leroy
<christophe.leroy@...roup.eu> wrote:
> Le 13/10/2021 à 09:02, Kees Cook a écrit :
> > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 05:25:33PM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> >> dereference_function_descriptor() and
> >> dereference_kernel_function_descriptor() are identical on the
> >> three architectures implementing them.
> >>
> >> Make it common.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
> >> ---
> >> arch/ia64/include/asm/sections.h | 19 -------------------
> >> arch/parisc/include/asm/sections.h | 9 ---------
> >> arch/parisc/kernel/process.c | 21 ---------------------
> >> arch/powerpc/include/asm/sections.h | 23 -----------------------
> >> include/asm-generic/sections.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> >> 5 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 72 deletions(-)
> >
> > A diffstat to love. :)
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> Unless somebody minds, I will make them out of line as
> suggested by Helge in he's comment to patch 4.
>
> Allthough there is no spectacular size reduction, the functions
> are not worth being inlined as they are not used in critical pathes.
Sounds good to me.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists