[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZS+x3oi0N6d3MZ8b@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 12:22:22 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Hou Wenlong <houwenlong.hwl@...group.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE 32-BIT AND 64-BIT" <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steve Rutherford <srutherford@...gle.com>,
Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/sme: Mark the code as __head in
mem_encrypt_identity.c
* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17 2023 at 14:52, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Hou Wenlong <houwenlong.hwl@...group.com> wrote:
> >> -static inline void __init sme_encrypt_kernel(struct boot_params *bp) { }
> >> -static inline void __init sme_enable(struct boot_params *bp) { }
> >> +static inline void sme_encrypt_kernel(struct boot_params *bp) { }
> >> +static inline void sme_enable(struct boot_params *bp) { }
> >
> > So I think we should preserve the previous convention of marking functions
> > __init in the header-declaration and at the definition site as well, and do
> > the same with __head as well?
>
> I'm not convinced about the value of prototype annotations, but have no
> strong preference either.
So it has some minor documentation purpose: when someone looks up a
function via the header only (I do that frequently), __init-alike
annotations really show the intended boot-only limitations of the API.
But that's a really minor Nth order benefit, I have no strong preference
either.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists