[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANiq72mUZRH4wxDF7L43z4Q1XoCdP=V_MmVTrCOTWRa8SHvwaA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2023 23:35:37 +0100
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, catalin.marinas@....com,
lenb@...nel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mhiramat@...nel.org,
ndesaulniers@...gle.com, ojeda@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, revest@...omium.org,
robert.moore@...el.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, will@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] Compiler attributes: GCC function alignment workarounds
On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 6:06 PM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
>
> Sorry, that is something I had intendeed to do but I hadn't extracted a
> reproducer yet. I'll try to come up with something that can be included in the
> commit message and reported to GCC folk (and double-check at the same time that
> there's not another hidden cause)
Yeah, no worries :) I suggested it because from my quick test it
didn't appear to be reproducible trivially, so I thought having the
reproducer would be nice.
> I'm happy to move these, I just wasn't sure what the policy would be w.r.t. the
> existing __weak and __cold defitions since those end up depending upon
> __function_aligned.
>
> I assume I should move them all? i.e. move __weak as well?
Yeah, with the current policy, all should be moved since their
behavior now depends on the config (eventually).
Cheers,
Miguel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists