On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 at 19:02, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote: [...] > > Similarly, for stack_depot_want_early_init, where instead you could > > simply provide stack_depot_want_early_init() as a function, which simply > > sets a boolean __stack_depot_want_early_init. If !STACKDEPOT, it'll also > > just be a no-op function. > > Yeah, makes sense. I guess I have patch 3/6 wrong now anyway as with > !STACKDEPOT it should fail linking due to missing stack_depot_want_early_init... Right. It probably still worked because the compiler likely optimizes out the dead call, but you never know... > >> +bool stack_depot_want_early_init = false; > >> + > > > > This can be __initdata, right? > > I initially thought so too, but in include/linux/init.h found > * Don't forget to initialize data not at file scope, i.e. within a function, > * as gcc otherwise puts the data into the bss section and not into the init > * section. > But maybe that's just outdated as everyone seems to init them at file scope. I think that comment is just about static variables inside functions? Here it's at file scope, so that caveat shouldn't apply. As an aside, you could omit '= false' because it'd zero-init by default. Thanks, -- Marco
