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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 31 Jul 2018 15:32:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKwvOdku_BOi6m2ugaef6=8+VH_+KAHH-Ch+uZZqMr8WAKARCw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Getting the instruction pointer on a per arch basis
To:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc:     Pirama Arumuga Nainar <pirama@google.com>,
        Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@google.com>,
        Mark Salyzyn <salyzyn@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

I'm currently looking into cleaning up the code duplication between
current_text_addr() and _THIS_IP_, virtually every implementation of
current_text_addr() and _THIS_IP_ itself are basically:

#define _THIS_IP_ ({ __label__ _l; _l: &&_l; })

For a few arch's, they have inline assembly instead (for
current_text_addr()).  Examples:
* s390
* sh
* ia64
* x86 (um and 32b)
* c6x
* sparc

I have a patch that cuts down on the duplication, but I don't
understand why the few arch specific implementations are necessary.  I
could reduce the duplication further if it's ok to just use the
statement expression.

Does anyone know why this is the case?
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers