From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA789C4332F for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 17:49:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S237234AbiKNRtA (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Nov 2022 12:49:00 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48110 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S237710AbiKNRsk (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Nov 2022 12:48:40 -0500 Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [IPv6:2001:8b0:10b:1236::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6422322515 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 09:48:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=IsUyS38f+l1a8x4Kf/i7TrtAyeuaOWOUYXGxNjKlgTw=; b=awZ8yFNthjh5BeK8CcaRz2uVZj MPAYwsyQsf9X64hT3EPKTClqFyMlDDuB07ch6N0vcGCd5pBgXGoY2c+QuKaWiJUny0eTVJwVjjnUP d7VMrRg5DtSWpYKVd0NNK+jGA269eiX+eeLbqZ09Jj5/KREJy4csCY43XkCV5N1EqlECu1IWyhAS8 aAPkAw4H+5gGqEqXk4oC09bADdDjJUWPoLobIyTEZtv4HQjDDVNhakAnjUoTpZidx3OC229mbiHYM AHWiTrxRq8gEjaXf5FkjmBk4BFhUMpwQFZ9M69NVFI7vy0YNV2oVqNrHsy7XlL7Xs52gG1U3tSyoZ AZQnqQZw==; Received: from j130084.upc-j.chello.nl ([24.132.130.84] helo=noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net) by casper.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1oudZP-00FcSy-Kg; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 17:48:31 +0000 Received: from hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net (hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net [192.168.1.225]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC2E83010ED; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 16:54:16 +0100 (CET) Received: by hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CB5A92B891F5A; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 16:54:16 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2022 16:54:16 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: "Jiri Slaby (SUSE)" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen , Josh Poimboeuf , Jason Baron , Steven Rostedt , Ard Biesheuvel , Martin Liska , Jiri Slaby Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/46] static_call, lto: Mark func_a() as __visible_on_lto Message-ID: References: <20221114114344.18650-1-jirislaby@kernel.org> <20221114114344.18650-11-jirislaby@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20221114114344.18650-11-jirislaby@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 12:43:08PM +0100, Jiri Slaby (SUSE) wrote: > -static int func_a(int x) > +__visible_on_lto int sc_func_a(int x) > } static_call_data [] __initdata = { > { NULL, 2, 3 }, > { func_b, 2, 4 }, > - { func_a, 2, 3 } > + { sc_func_a, 2, 3 } > }; I must say I really hate this. Also, with address taken, it still eliminiates it? This whole GCC-LTO sounds sub-par.