Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 30 Jul 2020 15:33:43 +0200
From:   peterz@infradead.org
To:     Julien Thierry <jthierry@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jpoimboe@redhat.com,
        mhelsley@vmware.com, mbenes@suse.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] objtool: orc_gen: Move orc_entry out of
 instruction structure
Message-ID: <20200730133343.GN2655@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20200730094143.27494-1-jthierry@redhat.com>
 <20200730094143.27494-5-jthierry@redhat.com>
 <20200730100304.GI2655@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <e4e239ad-120e-bd8f-4128-6976146c8512@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e4e239ad-120e-bd8f-4128-6976146c8512@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 01:40:48PM +0100, Julien Thierry wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/30/20 11:03 AM, peterz@infradead.org wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 10:41:43AM +0100, Julien Thierry wrote:
> > > One orc_entry is associated with each instruction in the object file,
> > > but having the orc_entry contained by the instruction structure forces
> > > architectures not implementing the orc subcommands to provide a dummy
> > > definition of the orc_entry.

> I guess I forgot about the usecase of running objtool on vmlinux...

Right, and LTO builds will even do ORC at that level.

> On a kernel build for x86_64 defconfig, the difference in time seems to be
> withing the noise.

Good.

> But I agree the proposed code is not ideal and on the other we've tried
> avoiding #ifdef in the code. Ideally I'd have an empty orc_entry definition
> when SUBCMD_ORC is not implemented.
> 
> Would you have a suggested approach to do that?

How ugly is having that:

struct orc_entry { };

?