On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 11:04:45AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 28 June 2018 at 11:02, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> wrote: > >>> @@ -56,7 +72,9 @@ jump_label_sort_entries(struct jump_entry *start, > >>> struct jump_entry *stop) > >>> > >>> size = (((unsigned long)stop - (unsigned long)start) > >>> / sizeof(struct jump_entry)); > >>> - sort(start, size, sizeof(struct jump_entry), jump_label_cmp, NULL); > >>> + sort(start, size, sizeof(struct jump_entry), jump_label_cmp, > >>> + IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_JUMP_LABEL_RELATIVE) ? > >>> jump_label_swap > >>> + : NULL); > >>> } > >> > >> That will result in jump_label_swap being an unused symbol for some > >> compile options. > > > > No, and isn't that the point of IS_ENABLED()? The compiler sees a > > reference to jump_label_swap(), so it won't complain about it being > > unused.
Ah, ok. I hadn't figured it was quite that smart about it. > > Meh. I thought IS_ENABLED() was preferred over #ifdef, no? Dunno, I just reacted to the proposed code's uglyness :-) > ... and it means the sort() routine will unconditionally perform an > indirect function call even if the arch does not require it. Yeah, not sure I care about that here, this is a one time affair, very far away from any fast paths.
