On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 10:52:24AM +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 05:33:15PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > + return 0; > For consistency with the changes in vec-syscfg, we could use > EXIT_SUCCESS here. 0 and EXIT_SUCCESS are defined as equivalent (though they need not be equal!) and 0 is much more idiomatic. > Although it's hard to see what could go wrong I/O-wise that doesn't > involve vec-syscfg itself having gone wrong, it's probably good > practice to do the final error check: > if (ferror(stdout) || fclose(stdout)) > return EXIT_FAILURE; > return EXIT_SUCCESS; > (In reality, people rarely seem to bother with this, so I'm not going > to lose sleep if we don't do it...) Yeah, I think this is one of those raising more questions than it answers kind of things. > > +.globl rdvl_sve > Should we stick a > .type rdvl_sve, @function > here? This may avoid surprises with future toolchain behaviours. > Probably doesn't matter, but I have bad memories of Thumb-2... > Lacking this annotation is widespread though, as well as being de facto > standard before awkward architectures came along. Yeah, it doesn't seem to be in the slightest bit idiomatic for the arm64 asm code the kernel has. I don't know if you think it's worth adding that to SYM_FUNC_START now we have it though? > If the selftests have access to the ENTRY() macro we could use that, but > I'm guessing that isn't exported for userspace. We don't use that any more anyway, it's SYM_FUNC_START() and friends not that those are outside the kernel either. We will have to do something like that if anyone starts building userspace with BTI though (or I might just shove a BTI C in there unconditionally, I'm sure we'll cope with the overhead on older systems).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
