On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 12:22:49 -0700 Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Yes, thank you for the analysis and further discussion! I have done some > rudimentary printk debugging in QEMU and it looks like these are produce > the same value: > > __stop___trace_bprintk_fmt > &__stop___trace_bprintk_fmt > &__start___trace_bprintk_fmt[0] > > as well as > > __stop___trace_bprintk_fmt != __start___trace_bprintk_fmt > &__stop___trace_bprintk_fmt != &__start___trace_bprintk_fmt > &__stop___trace_bprintk_fmt[0] != &__start___trace_bprintk_fmt[0] > > I'll use the second one once I confirm this is true in all callspots > with both Clang and GCC, since it looks cleaner. Let me know if there > are any objections to that. Myself and I'm sure others would be fine with this approach as it is still readable. I was just against the encapsulating the logic in a strange macro that killed readability. I haven't looked at the resulting assembly from these, and will currently take your word for it ;-) Of course, I will thoroughly test any patches to this code to make sure it does not hurt functionality. -- Steve
