On 2021-03-30, Petr Mladek <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue 2021-03-23 15:42:01, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: >> The printk code is already hard enough to understand. Remove an >> unnecessary indirection by renaming vprintk_func to vprintk (adding >> the asmlinkage annotation), and removing the vprintk definition from >> printk.c. That way, printk is implemented in terms of vprintk as one >> would expect, and there's no "vprintk_func, what's that? Some function >> pointer that gets set where?" >> >> The declaration of vprintk in linux/printk.h already has the >> __printf(1,0) attribute, there's no point repeating that with the >> definition - it's for diagnostics in callers. >> >> linux/printk.h already contains a static inline {return 0;} definition >> of vprintk when !CONFIG_PRINTK. >> >> Since the corresponding stub definition of vprintk_func was not marked >> "static inline", any translation unit including internal.h would get a >> definition of vprintk_func - it just so happens that for >> !CONFIG_PRINTK, there is precisely one such TU, namely printk.c. Had >> there been more, it would be a link error; now it's just a silly waste >> of a few bytes of .text, which one must assume are rather precious to >> anyone disabling PRINTK. >> >> $ objdump -dr kernel/printk/printk.o >> 00000330 <vprintk_func>: >> 330: 31 c0 xor %eax,%eax >> 332: c3 ret >> 333: 8d b4 26 00 00 00 00 lea 0x0(%esi,%eiz,1),%esi >> 33a: 8d b6 00 00 00 00 lea 0x0(%esi),%esi >> >> Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <[email protected]> > > Nice clean up! > > Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <[email protected]> > > John, > > it conflicts with the patchset removing printk safe buffers[1]. > Would you prefer to queue this into the patchset? > Or should I push it into printk/linux.git, printk-rework and you would > base v2 on top of it?
Please push it to printk-rework. I will base my v2 on top of it. Thanks. John
