[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221114202930.w6mzwpiii6xlhqkm@two.firstfloor.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2022 12:29:30 -0800
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Jiri Slaby (SUSE)" <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Martin Liska <mliska@...e.cz>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/46] static_call, lto: Mark func_a() as __visible_on_lto
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 04:54:16PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 12:43:08PM +0100, Jiri Slaby (SUSE) wrote:
>
> > -static int func_a(int x)
> > +__visible_on_lto int sc_func_a(int x)
>
> > } static_call_data [] __initdata = {
> > { NULL, 2, 3 },
> > { func_b, 2, 4 },
> > - { func_a, 2, 3 }
> > + { sc_func_a, 2, 3 }
> > };
>
> I must say I really hate this. Also, with address taken, it still
> eliminiates it?
It doesn't eliminate it, but makes it static, which causes the label to
change, so the assembler reference breaks.
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists