On 2023-12-05 00:18, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
On 2023-12-04 08:44, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 02.12.2023 04:03, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > On 01.12.2023 03:47, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 29 Nov 2023, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> > > > > No functional change.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetr...@bugseng.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > The preferred way to deviate is to use asmlinkage, but this
> > > > > modification is only
> > > > > the consequence of NUMA on ARM (and possibly PPC) being a work in
> > > > > progress.
> > > > > As stated in the comment above the textual deviation,
> > > > > first_valid_mfn will
> > > > > likely then become static and there would be no need for the comment
> > > > > anymore.
> > > > > This works towards having the analysis for this rule clean (i.e. no
> > > > > violations);
> > > > > the interest in having a clean rule is that then it could be used to
> > > > > signal
> > > > > newly introduced violations by making the analysis job fail.
> > > >
> > > > Please add this text as part of the commit message. It can be done on
> > > > commit.
> > >
> > > I assume you saw my reply on another of the patches in this series as to
> > > asmlinkage use on variables? IOW I think this paragraph would also need
> > > adjustment to account for that.
> >
> > I was going to ask you about that: reading your reply
> > https://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=170142048615336 it is not clear to me
> > what you are asking or suggesting as next step in regard to asmlinkage
> > use on variables.
>
> Either we need a separate attribute, or we need affirmation that calling
> convention attributes are ignored (and going to be going forward) for
> variables, or we need to resort to SAF-* comments. I'm not sure what's
> best (assuming the "affirm" wouldn't really be possible).
>
Well, gcc does warn on unsupported attributes for the entity which are
being
dropped. This appears to be the case for calling convention
attributes, as
they are not listed in their documentation for variable attributes,
but some
more digging would be required to determine whether that's always the
case.
Given that I don't suppose we have many variables that need deviating
(probably only 2-3 overall?) I think it is just easier to add a SAF
comment.
I agree, but then given what Julien wrote in the thread, I'll see what I
can do to avoid creating a new SAF entry.
--
Nicola Vetrini, BSc
Software Engineer, BUGSENG srl (https://bugseng.com)
