On Mon, 1 Jun 2026 14:17:08 +0800
Shuai Xue <[email protected]> wrote:
> > diff --git a/scripts/sorttable.c b/scripts/sorttable.c
> > index e8ed11c680c6..4c10e85bb5af 100644
> > --- a/scripts/sorttable.c
> > +++ b/scripts/sorttable.c
> > @@ -891,17 +891,21 @@ static int do_file(char const *const fname, void
> > *addr)
> > table_sort_t custom_sort = NULL;
> >
> > switch (elf_map_machine(ehdr)) {
> > - case EM_AARCH64:
> > #ifdef MCOUNT_SORT_ENABLED
> > + case EM_AARCH64:
> > sort_reloc = true;
> > rela_type = 0x403;
> > - /* arm64 uses patchable function entry placing before function
> > */
> > + /* fallthrough */
> > + case EM_RISCV:
> > + /* arm64 and RISC-V place patchable entries before the function
> > */
> > before_func = 8;
>
> Nit: The shared comment now sits under `case EM_RISCV:` but the two
> lines above it (sort_reloc / rela_type = 0x403) are strictly
> arm64-only — they configure the RELA-based weak-function fixup that
> RISC-V does not need. On a quick read it is easy to wonder if RISC-V
> is implicitly inheriting that path. Splitting the comments would
> help, e.g.:
>
> case EM_AARCH64:
> /* arm64 needs RELA-based weak-function fixup */
> sort_reloc = true;
> rela_type = 0x403;
> /* fallthrough */
> case EM_RISCV:
> /* arm64 and RISC-V place patchable entries before the function */
> before_func = 8;
Makes sense.
Care to send a v3?
-- Steve
