From: Denis Efremov <efremov@linux.com>
To: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com>,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] modpost: check for static EXPORT_SYMBOL* functions
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 19:44:49 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d26ff0d1-fc45-d5b5-fe84-26fa9df09c3e@linux.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK7LNATnC6eVmahn=44F-j3Uf-x+cUWuP0q7QuP800biL9QJiA@mail.gmail.com>
On 30.07.2019 19:29, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> I prefer this, but why do you need to check type?
>
> Doesn't this work?
>
> for (sym = info.symtab_start; sym < info.symtab_stop; sym++) {
> unsigned char bind = ELF_ST_BIND(sym->st_info);
>
> struct symbol *s = find_symbol(remove_dot(info.strtab +
> sym->st_name));
>
> if (s && (bind == STB_GLOBAL || bind == STB_WEAK))
> s->is_static = 0;
> }
This works. However, I thought it will be too costly to call find_symbol
on each symbol. Hence, 'type == STT_OBJECT || type == STT_FUNC || type
== STT_NOTYPE' is a small performance optimization because we need to
check only variables and functions. Is it worth to remove it in v4?
Denis
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-30 16:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-14 15:28 [RFC PATCH] " Denis Efremov
2019-07-15 14:43 ` Emil Velikov
2019-07-27 12:55 ` Masahiro Yamada
2019-07-27 19:13 ` Denis Efremov
2019-07-28 2:00 ` Masahiro Yamada
2019-07-28 10:09 ` [PATCH] " Denis Efremov
2019-07-29 3:29 ` Masahiro Yamada
2019-07-29 9:51 ` Denis Efremov
2019-07-29 5:13 ` Stephen Rothwell
2019-07-29 9:16 ` Denis Efremov
2019-07-29 9:32 ` Masahiro Yamada
2019-07-29 12:40 ` Stephen Rothwell
2019-07-29 12:52 ` Denis Efremov
2019-07-29 13:07 ` Stephen Rothwell
2019-07-29 9:22 ` [PATCH v2] " Denis Efremov
2019-07-29 12:20 ` Stephen Rothwell
2019-07-29 12:47 ` Denis Efremov
2019-07-29 14:18 ` [PATCH v3] " Denis Efremov
2019-07-29 22:26 ` Stephen Rothwell
2019-07-30 6:59 ` Denis Efremov
2019-07-30 16:29 ` Masahiro Yamada
2019-07-30 16:44 ` Denis Efremov [this message]
2019-07-30 17:21 ` Masahiro Yamada
2019-07-30 18:11 ` [PATCH v4] " Denis Efremov
2019-07-30 18:15 ` Denis Efremov
2019-07-31 8:54 ` Masahiro Yamada
2019-08-01 2:20 ` Masahiro Yamada
2019-08-01 6:17 ` Denis Efremov
2019-08-01 6:06 ` [PATCH v5] " Denis Efremov
2019-08-07 15:12 ` Masahiro Yamada
2019-08-13 16:07 ` Masahiro Yamada
2019-08-13 21:11 ` Denis Efremov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=d26ff0d1-fc45-d5b5-fe84-26fa9df09c3e@linux.com \
--to=efremov@linux.com \
--cc=emil.l.velikov@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michal.lkml@markovi.net \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
--cc=yamada.masahiro@socionext.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®