[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjj6=zScZ0UPhRm3tAmEusLmc0UKvD6rRqq7ZpPezJsYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2025 08:39:22 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] objtool fixes
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 at 01:31, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Ugh, fragile hard-coded special cases like that are exactly what we're
> trying to get away from. They make the code unmaintainable and they end
> up triggering false positives, just like the one fixed by that patch in
> the first place.
Josh, the "unmaintainable" is more important for the *kernel* than for objtool.
And the whole *point* of objtool is to check the object file and do
those "hard-coded special cases".
So the argument makes no sense.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists