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;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     "Jiri Slaby (SUSE)" <jirislaby@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Martin Liska <mliska@suse.cz>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/46] entry, lto: Mark raw_irqentry_exit_cond_resched()
 as __visible
In-Reply-To: <20221114114344.18650-19-jirislaby@kernel.org>
References: <20221114114344.18650-1-jirislaby@kernel.org>
 <20221114114344.18650-19-jirislaby@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 17 Nov 2022 00:30:34 +0100
Message-ID: <87a64qo4th.ffs@tglx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 14 2022 at 12:43, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> Symbols referenced from assembler (either directly or e.f. from

from assembler? I'm not aware that the assembler references anything.

Also what does e.f. mean? Did you want to write e.g.?

> DEFINE_STATIC_KEY()) need to be global and visible in gcc LTO because
> they could end up in a different object file than the assembler. This

than the assembler? Are we shipping the assembler in an object file?

> can lead to linker errors without this patch.

git grep -i 'this patch' Documentation/process/

> So mark raw_irqentry_exit_cond_resched() as __visible.

And all that tells me what? I know what you want to say, but it's not
there.

  Symbols in different compilation units which are referenced from
  assembly code either directly or indirectly, e.g. from
  DEFINE_STATIC_KEY(), must be marked visible for GCC based LTO builds.

  Add the missing __visible annotation to raw_irqentry_exit_cond_resched().

See?

There is no 'global' because it's obvious that a symbol in a different
compilation unit must be global to be resolvable. It's also obvious that
code in different compilation units ends up in different object files.

So stating that it's a 'must' to have such symbols marked visible is
good enough for an argument because that tells the reader that this is a
mandatory requirement for an GCC based LTO build.

No?

Thanks,

        tglx