[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230322144545.GE2357380@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2023 15:45:45 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Will McVicker <willmcvicker@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/11] static_call: Make NULL static calls consistent
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 09:00:15PM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> + * or using static_call_update() with a NULL function pointer. In both cases
> + * the HAVE_STATIC_CALL implementation will patch the trampoline with a RET
> +* instruction, instead of an immediate tail-call JMP. HAVE_STATIC_CALL_INLINE
> +* architectures can patch the trampoline call to a NOP.
> *
> * In all cases, any argument evaluation is unconditional. Unlike a regular
> * conditional function pointer call:
you wrecked the indent there ;-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists