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 17:57:04 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     "Michael Kelley (EOSG)" <Michael.H.Kelley@microsoft.com>
Cc:     "olaf@aepfle.de" <olaf@aepfle.de>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@microsoft.com>,
        "jasowang@redhat.com" <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "marcelo.cerri@canonical.com" <marcelo.cerri@canonical.com>,
        "apw@canonical.com" <apw@canonical.com>,
        "devel@linuxdriverproject.org" <devel@linuxdriverproject.org>,
        "vkuznets@redhat.com" <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        "leann.ogasawara@canonical.com" <leann.ogasawara@canonical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 char-misc 1/1] x86/hyperv: Add interrupt handler
 annotations
Message-ID: <20180404155704.GA5891@kroah.com>
References: <1522789148-1787-1-git-send-email-mikelley@microsoft.com>
 <20180404081629.GA22277@kroah.com>
 <DM5PR2101MB10306FD0D4DD653D7878C2BEDCA40@DM5PR2101MB1030.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR2101MB10306FD0D4DD653D7878C2BEDCA40@DM5PR2101MB1030.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 03:47:03PM +0000, Michael Kelley (EOSG) wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 4, 2018 1:16 AM
> > To: Michael Kelley (EOSG) <Michael.H.Kelley@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; Stephen Hemminger
> > <sthemmin@microsoft.com>; KY Srinivasan <kys@microsoft.com>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 char-misc 1/1] x86/hyperv: Add interrupt handler annotations
> > 
> > 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?
> 
> Thomas Gleixner commented on Vitaly Kuznetsov's Hyper-V reenlightenment patch
> that the interrupt handler should have these annotations: see
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/1/14/145

Ok, then someone needs to put a "Suggested-by:" or "Requested-by:" or
something like that tag here, right?

> I put the same annotations on the interrupt handler for stimer0 Direct Mode,
> So this change makes the hyperv_vector_handler() consistent with
> hv_stimer0_vector_handler() in the same source file.  It does not fix any
> immediate bug -- it's for consistency and alignment with what is apparently
> standard practice.
> 
> Not sure what LTO is ...

That's what the __visable marking fixes!  Please go at least _read_ the
definition of the marking you are adding to a function before doing it.
Otherwise this is just cargo-cult-coding :(

thanks,

greg k-h