On 25.11.2024 21:25, Julien Grall wrote: > On 01/10/2024 16:17, Jan Beulich wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> >> --- >> Should the GLOBAL()s also be replaced? > > What would you replace them with?
LABEL() or, perhaps better, DATA()/END() pairs. >> @@ -362,13 +362,13 @@ trap_irq: >> trap_fiq: >> vector fiq >> >> -return_from_trap: >> +LABEL_LOCAL(return_from_trap) > > OOI, why do we need to annotate return_from_trap? We don't _need_ to; it's for consistency. Please advise whether you want me to drop that change (it's the only use of LABEL_LOCAL() throughout the series). But please be aware that then END(return_from_trap) also needs dropping (i.e. leaving the range uncovered as far as plain ELF metadata goes). >> /* >> * Restore the stack pointer from r11. It was saved on exception >> * entry (see __DEFINE_TRAP_ENTRY). >> */ >> mov sp, r11 >> -ENTRY(return_to_new_vcpu32) >> +LABEL(return_to_new_vcpu32) > > I am a bit confused why this is a LABEL rather than a FUNC. But I wonder > if either of them are corrrect? The code above is meant to fall into > this one. My take is that function (or object) ranges shouldn't overlap. That's an abstract reason. There's a practical reason, too: With "common: honor CONFIG_CC_SPLIT_SECTIONS also for assembly functions" FUNC() will change sections when CC_SPLIT_SECTIONS=y (which LABEL() won't). Section changes clearly may not happen when fall-through is intended. > So I think at least the alignment should be 0. That would be a change compared to the prior use of ENTRY(). I can certainly do so, but without having sufficient context my goal was to leave existing alignment unaltered as far as possible (on the assumption that there's a reason for it). Jan
