Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: annotate entry points with type and size

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 14.04.2022 14:59, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 14.04.2022 14:49, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 12/04/2022 11:28, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> Future gas versions will generate minimalistic Dwarf debug info for
>>> items annotated as functions and having their sizes specified [1].
>>> "Borrow" Arm's END() and ENDPROC() to avoid open-coding (and perhaps
>>> typo-ing) the respective directives.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> [1] 
>>> https://sourceware.org/git?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commitdiff;h=591cc9fbbfd6d51131c0f1d4a92e7893edcc7a28
>>
>> I'm conflicted by this change.
>>
>> You've clearly changed your mind since you rejected my patch introducing
>> this infrastructure and starting to use it.
> 
> Hmm, to be honest I don't recall me rejecting such work of yours.
> In fact I have always been in favor of properly typing symbols,
> where sensible and possible. I would therefore assume it was more
> the "how" than the "that" which I wasn't happy with. If you have
> a reference to the old thread to hand, I'd be interested in
> looking up what made me oppose back at the time.
> 
>> Given that it is a reoccurring bug with livepatching which has been in
>> need of fixing since 2018, I'd organised some work to port Linux's
>> linkage.h as something more likely to have been acceptable.
> 
> Taking what they've got would likely be fine as well. At least in
> a suitably stripped down manner (looking at their header they may
> have gone a little overboard with this).

Over two months have passed. I wonder whether I had misunderstood your
reply: I took it to mean an alternative patch or series would be
posted. In the absence of that and considering that you say that you
did want such annotations anyway, I wonder what it is that stands in
the way of these two patches making it in.

Jan