"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n....@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> Sathvika Vasireddy wrote:
>>
>>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.o: warning: objtool: kvmppc_fill_pt_regs+0x30:
>>>>> unannotated intra-function call
>>
>> As an attempt to fix it, I tried expanding ANNOTATE_INTRA_FUNCTION_CALL
>> macro to indicate that the branch target is valid. It then threw another
>> warning (arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.o: warning: objtool:
>> kvmppc_fill_pt_regs+0x38: intra_function_call not a direct call). The
>> below diff just removes the warnings for me, but I'm not very sure if
>> this is the best way to fix the objtool warnings seen with this
>> particular file. Please let me know if there are any better ways to fix it.
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
>> index 0dce93ccaadf..b6a413824b98 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
>> @@ -917,7 +917,9 @@ static void kvmppc_fill_pt_regs(struct pt_regs *regs)
>> asm("mr %0, 1" : "=r"(r1));
>> asm("mflr %0" : "=r"(lr));
>> asm("mfmsr %0" : "=r"(msr));
>> + asm(".pushsection .discard.intra_function_calls; .long 999f;
>> .popsection; 999:");
>> asm("bl 1f; 1: mflr %0" : "=r"(ip));
>
> I don't think you can assume that there won't be anything in between two
> asm statements.
Yeah, compiler could interleave something theoretically.
> Even if that works, I don't think it is good to expand the macro here.
> That asm statement looks to be trying to grab the current nip. I don't
> know enough about that code, and someone who knows more about KVM may be
> able to help, but it looks like we should be able to simply set 'ip' to
> the address of kvmppc_fill_pt_regs()?
There is _THIS_IP_ which should be sufficient.
cheers
