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? Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html