lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 04/13] recordmcount: Rewrite error/success handling
On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 18:37:11 +0000
Matt Helsley <mhelsley@vmware.com> wrote:

> >> diff --git a/scripts/recordmcount.h b/scripts/recordmcount.h
> >> index c1e1b04b4871..909a3e4775c2 100644
> >> --- a/scripts/recordmcount.h
> >> +++ b/scripts/recordmcount.h
> >> @@ -24,7 +24,9 @@
> >> #undef mcount_adjust
> >> #undef sift_rel_mcount
> >> #undef nop_mcount
> >> +#undef missing_sym
> >> #undef find_secsym_ndx
> >> +#undef already_has_rel_mcount
> >
> > Why do we need these as defines? Can't you just have a single:
> >
> > const char *already_has_mcount = "success";
> >
> > in recordmcount.c before recordmcount.h is included?
> >
> > And same for missing_sym.
>
> Yes, that’s a good point. I’ve been trying to separate the changes to
> the functions from moving parts out but in this case it would make
> just as much sense to add them to recordmcount.c in the first place.
>
> Ultimately, this ugliness gets removed as the next series removes
> recordmcount.h entirely and one of the steps is moving
> find_secsym_ndx() out while eliminating these redundant pieces.

Yeah, this code will be cleaned up later, but let's have the steps in
between look fine as well.


>
> >
> > Another, probably more robust way of doing this, is change
> > find_secsym_ndx() to return 0 on success and -1 on missing symbol,
> > and just pass a pointer by reference to fill the recsym (which
> > doesn't have to be a constant).
>
> That’s easy enough to do and I do like separating the error/success
> return from returning the index. I can send that out now or tack it
> onto the next RFC series I’m about to send which completes the
> conversion if that’s preferable.
>
> Yeah, the original code applies “const” in lots of places -- I
> presume it’s an attempt to eek out every last bit of performance from
> the compiler.

As I said before, I've applied patches 1-3, so you don't need to resend
them. I finished looking at the rest, and only this patch needs to be
fixed, and since you are resending, could you fix the "upside-down
x-mas" tree declaration I mentioned in patch 8.

Thanks Matt,

-- Steve
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-26 20:44    [W:0.049 / U:3.060 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site