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:   Mon, 8 Feb 2021 14:42:09 -0600
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86@kernel.org,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 05/12] x86/irq: Provide macro for inlining irq stack
 switching
Message-ID: <20210208204209.yccd76j7sp2zbv37@treble>
References: <20210204204903.350275743@linutronix.de>
 <20210204211154.618389756@linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210204211154.618389756@linutronix.de>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 09:49:08PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>  #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_UNWINDER_FRAME_POINTER
> +# define IRQSTACK_CALL_CONSTRAINT	, ASM_CALL_CONSTRAINT
> +#else
> +# define IRQSTACK_CALL_CONSTRAINT
> +#endif

Is this really needed?  i.e. does ASM_CALL_CONSTRAINT actually affect
code generation with !FRAME_POINTER?

If so then we should rework ASM_CALL_CONSTRAINT itself to be something
similar to the above, as it's only ever needed with frame pointers.

-- 
Josh