Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 4 Apr 2018 10:16:29 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     mikelley@microsoft.com
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devel@linuxdriverproject.org,
        olaf@aepfle.de, apw@canonical.com, vkuznets@redhat.com,
        jasowang@redhat.com, leann.ogasawara@canonical.com,
        marcelo.cerri@canonical.com, sthemmin@microsoft.com,
        kys@microsoft.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 char-misc 1/1] x86/hyperv: Add interrupt handler
 annotations
Message-ID: <20180404081629.GA22277@kroah.com>
References: <1522789148-1787-1-git-send-email-mikelley@microsoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1522789148-1787-1-git-send-email-mikelley@microsoft.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 01:59:08PM -0700, mhkelley58@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Michael Kelley <mikelley@microsoft.com>
> 
> Add standard interrupt handler annotations to
> hyperv_vector_handler().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michael Kelley <mikelley@microsoft.com>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> * Fixed From: line
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c
> index 4488cf0..20f6849 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c
> @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ static void (*hv_stimer0_handler)(void);
>  static void (*hv_kexec_handler)(void);
>  static void (*hv_crash_handler)(struct pt_regs *regs);
>  
> -void hyperv_vector_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
> +__visible void __irq_entry hyperv_vector_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)

What bug does this solve?  What is wrong with the existing markings?
What does __visible and __irq_entry give us that we don't already have
and we need?

Are you really using LTO that requires this marking to prevent the code
from being removed?

thanks,

greg k-h