Re: [PATCH v2 8/9] objtool: Detect missing __noreturn annotations

[Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>]

On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 04:19:10PM +0200, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > --- a/tools/objtool/check.c
> > +++ b/tools/objtool/check.c
> > @@ -4485,7 +4485,8 @@ static int validate_sls(struct objtool_file *file)
> >  
> >  static int validate_reachable_instructions(struct objtool_file *file)
> >  {
> > -	struct instruction *insn;
> > +	struct instruction *insn, *prev_insn;
> > +	struct symbol *call_dest;
> >  	int warnings = 0;
> >  
> >  	if (file->ignore_unreachables)
> > @@ -4495,6 +4496,17 @@ static int validate_reachable_instructions(struct objtool_file *file)
> >  		if (insn->visited || ignore_unreachable_insn(file, insn))
> >  			continue;
> >  
> > +		prev_insn = prev_insn_same_sec(file, insn);
> > +		if (prev_insn && prev_insn->dead_end) {
> > +			call_dest = insn_call_dest(prev_insn);
> > +			if (call_dest) {
> > +				WARN_INSN(insn, "%s() is missing a __noreturn annotation",
> > +					  call_dest->name);
> > +				warnings++;
> > +				continue;
> 
> A nit but this and
> 
> > +			}
> > +		}
> > +
> >  		WARN_INSN(insn, "unreachable instruction");
> >  		warnings++;
> 
> this makes me thinking. Wouldn't it be confusing to anyone that there is 
> no correspondence between warnings and a number of actual reported 
> warnings through WARN_INSN()? In the future when there would be a usage 
> for warnings. It does not really matter now.

True, maybe we need WARN_INSN_ONCE_PER_FUNC() or so ;-)

-- 
Josh