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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Static calls
From:   Edward Cree <ecree@solarflare.com>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
CC:     <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <x86@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
References: <cover.1543200841.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
 <0e96ac37-d5c5-86b6-833c-0de01ba18f0d@solarflare.com>
Message-ID: <188e9e90-ed8a-18d9-fc69-c208b80404f1@solarflare.com>
Date:   Fri, 7 Dec 2018 16:49:40 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0e96ac37-d5c5-86b6-833c-0de01ba18f0d@solarflare.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 07/12/18 16:06, Edward Cree wrote:
> Sorry if this has been pointed out before (it's a very long thread), but
>  in the out-of-line implementation, it appears that static_call_update()
>  never alters key->func.  Am I right in thinking that this should be
>  fixed by adding 'WRITE_ONCE(key->func, func);' just after the call to
>  arch_static_call_transform() on line 159 of include/linux/static_call.h?
On further examination, it's worse than that.

Why does the CONFIG_HAVE_STATIC_CALL_OUTLINE static_call_update() not
 call __static_call_update()?  It contains nothing but a BUILD_BUG_ON,
 which isn't likely to update anything.

-Ed