Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.35 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.35;
Sender: Ingo Molnar <mingo.kernel.org@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Oct 2023 12:22:22 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Hou Wenlong <houwenlong.hwl@antgroup.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE 32-BIT AND 64-BIT" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Steve Rutherford <srutherford@google.com>,
        Michael Kelley <mikelley@microsoft.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/sme: Mark the code as __head in
 mem_encrypt_identity.c
Message-ID: <ZS+x3oi0N6d3MZ8b@gmail.com>
References: <cover.1697525407.git.houwenlong.hwl@antgroup.com>
 <b2670a8a79a7b4a5c8993fb916904af7c675b7f8.1697525407.git.houwenlong.hwl@antgroup.com>
 <ZS6DngTm9ILei4dM@gmail.com>
 <874jip58pp.ffs@tglx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <874jip58pp.ffs@tglx>
Precedence: bulk


* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 17 2023 at 14:52, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Hou Wenlong <houwenlong.hwl@antgroup.com> wrote:
> >> -static inline void __init sme_encrypt_kernel(struct boot_params *bp) { }
> >> -static inline void __init sme_enable(struct boot_params *bp) { }
> >> +static inline void sme_encrypt_kernel(struct boot_params *bp) { }
> >> +static inline void sme_enable(struct boot_params *bp) { }
> >
> > So I think we should preserve the previous convention of marking functions 
> > __init in the header-declaration and at the definition site as well, and do 
> > the same with __head as well?
> 
> I'm not convinced about the value of prototype annotations, but have no
> strong preference either.

So it has some minor documentation purpose: when someone looks up a 
function via the header only (I do that frequently), __init-alike 
annotations really show the intended boot-only limitations of the API.

But that's a really minor Nth order benefit, I have no strong preference 
either.

Thanks,

	Ingo