On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 01:59:08PM -0700, mhkelley58@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: Michael Kelley <mikelley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Add standard interrupt handler annotations to > hyperv_vector_handler(). > > Signed-off-by: Michael Kelley <mikelley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Changes in v2: > * Fixed From: line > --- > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c > index 4488cf0..20f6849 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c > @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ static void (*hv_stimer0_handler)(void); > static void (*hv_kexec_handler)(void); > static void (*hv_crash_handler)(struct pt_regs *regs); > > -void hyperv_vector_handler(struct pt_regs *regs) > +__visible void __irq_entry hyperv_vector_handler(struct pt_regs *regs) What bug does this solve? What is wrong with the existing markings? What does __visible and __irq_entry give us that we don't already have and we need? Are you really using LTO that requires this marking to prevent the code from being removed? thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
