On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 at 14:00, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I had commented out both. But the real reason is the EXPORT_SYMBOL,
> which obviously wants to be EXPORT_PER_CPU_SYMBOL_GPL...
Side note: while it's nice to hear that sparse kind of got this right,
I wonder what gcc does when we start using the named address spaces
for percpu variables.
We actively make EXPORT_PER_CPU_SYMBOL_XYZ be a no-op for sparse
exactly because sparse ended up warning about the regular
EXPORT_SYMBOL, and we didn't have any "real" per-cpu export model.
So EXPORT_PER_CPU_SYMBOL_GPL() is kind of an artificial "shut up
sparse". But with __seg_gs/fs support for native percpu symbols with
gcc, I wonder if we'll hit the same thing. Or is there something that
makes gcc not warn about the named address spaces?
Because in many ways the gcc named address spaces _should_ be pretty
much equivalent to the sparse ones.
Linus
