Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 13 Sep 2022 10:08:35 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>,
        Johannes Wikner <kwikner@ethz.ch>,
        Alyssa Milburn <alyssa.milburn@linux.intel.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
        Joao Moreira <joao.moreira@intel.com>,
        Joseph Nuzman <joseph.nuzman@intel.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/59] x86/build: Ensure proper function alignment
Message-ID: <YyA6gwtAKRwmJR53@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20220902130625.217071627@infradead.org>
 <20220902130947.190618587@infradead.org>
 <CAHk-=whdvPcHmH5eG+FUrbQw1e-05n__EWobMqbxcCTP7dtZAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <YxI+K8Y+f/FHSQCU@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAHk-=wjRLehUO=u8HDJGRFv+wz7hakSc=z6eTg547pAmb0UKHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <YxXJswK9QjhCGmPN@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAHk-=whRetwx+5Bjiee+T+Nyyi8EiZ17SM3AL8jJnXuA+WjQyQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Yx+MBXvGLhbd7dHH@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Yx+MBXvGLhbd7dHH@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 09:44:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 10:09:38AM -0400, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> > The patch looks sane, the only thing I worry a bit about is
> > 
> > > +config FUNCTION_ALIGNMENT
> > > +       int
> > > +       default 64 if FUNCTION_ALIGNMENT_64B
> > ..
> > > +       default 0
> > 
> > Is '0' even a valid value then for things like
> 
> At the time I thought to have read that 0 alignment effectively no-ops
> the statement, but now I can't find it in a hurry, happy to make it
> default to 4.

Found it: https://sourceware.org/binutils/docs-2.39/as/Balign.html

7.8 .balign[wl] [abs-expr[, abs-expr[, abs-expr]]]

Pad the location counter (in the current subsection) to a particular
storage boundary. The first expression (which must be absolute) is the
alignment request in bytes. ...  If the expression is omitted then a
default value of 0 is used, effectively disabling alignment
requirements.

(for some raisin google served me a very old binutils document last
night that doesn't have mention the 0 thing)