On 04/24/2017, 05:55 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Jiri Slaby <jsl...@suse.cz> wrote: > >> On 04/24/2017, 05:08 PM, David Miller wrote: >>> If you align the entry points, then the code sequence as a whole is >>> are no longer densely packed. >> >> Sure. >> >>> Or do I misunderstand how your macros work? >> >> Perhaps. So the suggested macros for the code are: >> #define BPF_FUNC_START_LOCAL(name) \ >> SYM_START(name, SYM_V_LOCAL, SYM_A_NONE) >> #define BPF_FUNC_START(name) \ >> SYM_START(name, SYM_V_GLOBAL, SYM_A_NONE) >> >> and they differ from the standard ones: >> #define SYM_FUNC_START_LOCAL(name) \ >> SYM_START(name, SYM_V_LOCAL, SYM_A_ALIGN) >> #define SYM_FUNC_START(name) \ >> SYM_START(name, SYM_V_GLOBAL, SYM_A_ALIGN) >> >> >> The difference is SYM_A_NONE vs. SYM_A_ALIGN, which means: >> #define SYM_A_ALIGN ALIGN >> #define SYM_A_NONE /* nothing */ >> >> Does it look OK now? > > No, the patch changes alignment which is undesirable, it needs to preserve > the > existing (non-)alignment of the symbols!
OK, so I am not expressing myself explicitly enough, it seems. So, correct, the patch v3 adds alignments. I suggested in the discussion the macros above. They do not add alignments. If everybody is OK with that, v4 of the patch won't add alignments. OK? thanks, -- js suse labs