Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Dec 2021 09:24:22 +0000 | From | Mark Rutland <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] linkage: better symbol aliasing |
| |
On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 03:04:45PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 12:47:09PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > > This series aims to make symbol aliasing simpler and more consistent. > > The basic idea is to replace SYM_FUNC_START_ALIAS(alias) and > > SYM_FUNC_END_ALIAS(alias) with a new SYM_FUNC_ALIAS(alias, name), so > > that e.g. > > > > SYM_FUNC_START(func) > > SYM_FUNC_START_ALIAS(alias1) > > SYM_FUNC_START_ALIAS(alias2) > > ... asm insns ... > > SYM_FUNC_END(func) > > SYM_FUNC_END_ALIAS(alias1) > > SYM_FUNC_END_ALIAS(alias2) > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(alias1) > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(alias2) > > > > ... can become: > > > > SYM_FUNC_START(name) > > ... asm insns ... > > SYM_FUNC_END(name) > > > > SYM_FUNC_ALIAS(alias1, func) > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(alias1) > > > > SYM_FUNC_ALIAS(alias2, func) > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(alias2) > > > > This avoids repetition and hopefully make it easier to ensure > > consistency (e.g. so each function has a single canonical name and > > associated metadata). > > > > I'm sending this as an RFC since I want to check: > > > > a) People are happy with the idea in principle. > > > > b) People are happy with the implementation within <linux/linkage.h>. > > > > ... and I haven't yet converted the headers under tools/, which is > > largely a copy+paste job. > > I'm happy with the approach and acked the arm64 patches for the record. > Not sure how/when this series will get into mainline.
Thanks!
As to "when", I think I'm going to rework the series atop v5.17-rc1, so for now would you be happy to pick patch 3 ("arm64: remove __dma_*_area() aliases"):
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20211206124715.4101571-4-mark.rutland@arm.com/
... into the arm64 tree? That'a a pure cleanup with no dependency on the rest of the series.
For the rest of the series I still need to to the mechanical work for tools/, there's a token-pasting issue on 32-bit arm, and I'd like to give this a long soak in -next, so earlier in the next window seems like a better bet.
As for "how", I assume the core linkage bits will go via the tip tree, so I think it'd make sense for the (remaining) arch bits to go that way too.
Thanks, Mark.
| |