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;
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date:   Mon, 27 Mar 2023 19:19:37 +1000
Message-Id: <CRH1YM72SK4L.QU56WGVQQ2GE@bobo>
Cc:     <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] arch/powerpc/kvm: kvmppc_hv_entry: remove
 .global scope
From:   "Nicholas Piggin" <npiggin@gmail.com>
To:     "Kautuk Consul" <kconsul@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Michael Ellerman" <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        "Christophe Leroy" <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
        "Fabiano Rosas" <farosas@linux.ibm.com>,
        "Sathvika Vasireddy" <sv@linux.ibm.com>,
        "Alexey Kardashevskiy" <aik@ozlabs.ru>
References: <20230316051025.1424093-1-kconsul@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20230316051025.1424093-2-kconsul@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230316051025.1424093-2-kconsul@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu Mar 16, 2023 at 3:10 PM AEST, Kautuk Consul wrote:
> kvmppc_hv_entry isn't called from anywhere other than
> book3s_hv_rmhandlers.S itself. Removing .global scope for
> this function and annotating it with SYM_INNER_LABEL.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kautuk Consul <kconsul@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>  arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_rmhandlers.S | 3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_rmhandlers.S b/arch/powerpc/kvm/b=
ook3s_hv_rmhandlers.S
> index acf80915f406..b81ba4ee0521 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_rmhandlers.S
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_rmhandlers.S
> @@ -502,8 +502,7 @@ END_FTR_SECTION_IFSET(CPU_FTR_ARCH_207S)
>   *                                                                      =
      *
>   ***********************************************************************=
******/
> =20
> -.global kvmppc_hv_entry

I think this is okay.

> -kvmppc_hv_entry:
> +SYM_INNER_LABEL(kvmppc_hv_entry, SYM_L_LOCAL)

The documentation for SYM_INNER_LABEL says it for labels inside a SYM
function block, is that a problem? This is a function but doesn't have
C calling convention, so asm annotation docs say that it should use
SYM_CODE_START_LOCAL?

BTW. why don't our _GLOBAL() macros use these SYM annotations? I haven't
really looked into them.

Thanks,
Nick