On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 23:38:44 -0700
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Aug 25, 2016 8:00 PM, "Nicholas Piggin" <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 19:52:39 +0200
> > "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 04:51:21PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 08:05:40 +0200
> > > > "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > Oh, that makes more sense. The SECTION stuff and custom sections
> was
> > > > > > confusing me. I would prefer just to drop all the LINUX_SECTION
> naming
> > > > > > and make it match the functionality you're using. For example:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +DEFINE_LINKTABLE(struct jump_entry, __jump_table);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > /* mutex to protect coming/going of the the jump_label table */
> > > > > > static DEFINE_MUTEX(jump_label_mutex);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > @@ -274,8 +277,6 @@ static void __jump_label_update(struct
> static_key *key,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > void __init jump_label_init(void)
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > - struct jump_entry *iter_start = __start___jump_table;
> > > > > > - struct jump_entry *iter_stop = __stop___jump_table;
> > > > > > struct static_key *key = NULL;
> > > > > > struct jump_entry *iter;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > @@ -292,9 +293,10 @@ void __init jump_label_init(void)
> > > > > > return;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > jump_label_lock();
> > > > > > - jump_label_sort_entries(iter_start, iter_stop);
> > > > > > + jump_label_sort_entries(LINUX_SECTION_START(__jump_table),
> > > > > > + LINUX_SECTION_END(__jump_table));
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now I think this is a fine abstraction to have.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK will keep this one.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I think it would look
> > > > > > even cleaner if you had:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > LINKTABLE_START(__jump_table)
> > > > > > LINKTABLE_END(__jump_table)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then do we need to even have the LINUX_SECTION middle man at all?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah, thing is we use this for both linktables and section ranges.
> > > > > Or do we want macros for both that do the same thing ?
> > > >
> > > > I think it would make the code using it more readable.
> > >
> > > Alrighty... so:
> > >
> > > LINKTABLE_START()
> > > LINKTABLE_END()
> > >
> > > SECTION_RANGE_START()
> > > SECTION_RANGE_END()
> > >
> > > And these macros do the exact same thing. Ie, nothing shared. Right?
> >
> > Yeah I think so. Internally they would probably be aliased to the
> > same common definition (unless you had some type check or something),
> > but user would know about such details.
>
> What name should we use for such common macro definition ?
Ah, not really sure. I guess the "link table" is some kind of
section range? I haven't actually looked closely at both of them
in the subsequent patches. It matters less if it's not expected
to be used as an API though.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
