Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 25 Apr 2020 20:53:13 +0200 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86: Fix early boot crash on gcc-10, next try |
| |
On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 01:37:01PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > That is a lot more typing then > asm("");
That's why a macro with a hopefully more descriptive name would be telling more than a mere asm("").
> but more seriously, you probably should explain why you do not want a > tail call *anyway*, and in such a comment you can say that is what the > asm is for.
Yes, the final version will have a comment and the whole spiel. This diff is just me polling the maintainers: "do you want this for your arch too?" Well, the PPC maintainers only, actually.
The other call in init/main.c would be for everybody.
> I don't see anything that prevents the tailcall in current code either, > fwiw.
Right, and I don't see a reason why gcc-10 would do that optimization on x86 only but I better ask first.
Thx.
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
| |