On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 09:35:18PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 01:58:23PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/linkage.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/linkage.h > > index 1436fa1cde24d..df18a3446ce82 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/linkage.h > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/linkage.h > > @@ -5,8 +5,14 @@ > > #include <asm/assembler.h> > > #endif > > > > -#define __ALIGN .align 2 > > -#define __ALIGN_STR ".align 2" > > +#if CONFIG_FUNCTION_ALIGNMENT > 0 > > +#define ARM64_FUNCTION_ALIGNMENT CONFIG_FUNCTION_ALIGNMENT > > +#else > > +#define ARM64_FUNCTION_ALIGNMENT 4 > > +#endif > > + > > +#define __ALIGN .balign ARM64_FUNCTION_ALIGNMENT > > +#define __ALIGN_STR ".balign " #ARM64_FUNCTION_ALIGNMENT > > Isn't that much the same as having ARM64 select FUNCTION_ALIGNMENT_4B > and simply removing all these lines and relying on the default > behaviour? There's a proposal (with some rough performance claims) to select FUNCTION_ALIGNMENT_16B over at: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221208053649.540891-1-almasrymina@xxxxxxxxxx so we could just go with that? Will
