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:   Mon, 14 Nov 2022 16:54:16 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     "Jiri Slaby (SUSE)" <jirislaby@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
        Martin Liska <mliska@suse.cz>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/46] static_call, lto: Mark func_a() as __visible_on_lto
Message-ID: <Y3JkqDBR0zgaTyPn@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20221114114344.18650-1-jirislaby@kernel.org>
 <20221114114344.18650-11-jirislaby@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221114114344.18650-11-jirislaby@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 12:43:08PM +0100, Jiri Slaby (SUSE) wrote:

> -static int func_a(int x)
> +__visible_on_lto int sc_func_a(int x)

>  } static_call_data [] __initdata = {
>        { NULL,   2, 3 },
>        { func_b, 2, 4 },
> -      { func_a, 2, 3 }
> +      { sc_func_a, 2, 3 }
>  };

I must say I really hate this. Also, with address taken, it still
eliminiates it?

This whole GCC-LTO sounds sub-par.