On 08/11/18 15:33, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 09:11:44AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 05.11.18 at 16:49, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> On 05/11/18 15:48, Wei Liu wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 08:04:37AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 02.11.18 at 16:55, <wei.l...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/traps.c
>>>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/traps.c
>>>>>> @@ -298,8 +298,21 @@ static unsigned int write_stub_trampoline(
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct stubs, stubs);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PV
>>>>>> void lstar_enter(void);
>>>>>> void cstar_enter(void);
>>>>>> +#else
>>>>>> +static inline void lstar_enter(void)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + panic("%s called", __func__);
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +static inline void cstar_enter(void)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + panic("%s called", __func__);
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +#endif /* CONFIG_PV */
>>>>> Do we really need two separate stubs (and two separate string literals)
>>>>> here?
>>>> I think it is clearer if we have two distinct messages. But I'm not too
>>>> fussed either way really. If you feel strongly about this, I'm happy to
>>>> change it to only one function.
>>> This is the correct way to do it. __func__ will already be in the
>>> string table, and the format string (being identical) will be merged.
>> Why would __func__ be in the string table already, for functions
>> containing no other references to it?
> What is the way forward? Do we really care if there is one more string
> literal in the binary?
No. One extra string like this is not something which needs caring
about in the slightest.
~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
