lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 8/9] perf/breakpoint: Split breakpoint "check" and "commit"
From
Date


> On May 15, 2018, at 8:11 PM, Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 11:17:03AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 09:19:54PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>>> arch/arm/include/asm/hw_breakpoint.h | 5 ++++-
>>> arch/arm/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c | 22 +++-------------------
>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/hw_breakpoint.h | 5 ++++-
>>> arch/arm64/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c | 22 +++-------------------
>>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/hw_breakpoint.h | 5 ++++-
>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c | 22 +++-------------------
>>> arch/sh/include/asm/hw_breakpoint.h | 5 ++++-
>>> arch/sh/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c | 22 +++-------------------
>>> arch/x86/include/asm/hw_breakpoint.h | 5 ++++-
>>> arch/x86/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c | 23 +++--------------------
>>> arch/xtensa/include/asm/hw_breakpoint.h | 5 ++++-
>>> arch/xtensa/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c | 22 +++-------------------
>>
>> Because of those ^,
>>
>>> kernel/events/hw_breakpoint.c | 11 ++++++-----
>>
>> would it not make sense to have a prelimenary patch doing something
>> like:
>>
>> __weak int hw_breakpoint_arch_check(struct perf_event *bp)
>> {
>> return arch_validate_hwbkpt_settings(bp);
>> }
>
> So eventually I fear I can't do that, due to linking order.
>
> Say I convert x86 to implement hw_breakpoint_arch_check(), so I
> remove arch_validate_hwbkpt_settings(). On build time, the weak version
> is still compiled and can't find a declaration for arch_validate_hwbkpt_settings().
>
> I tried to keep the declaration while the definition has been removed but
> it seems the weak version is linked first before it gets later replaced by
> the overriden arch version. So I get a build error.
>
> I could keep arch_validate_hwbkpt_settings() around on all archs and remove it in
> the end with the weak version but that would defeat the purpose of removing
> the mid-state in the current patch.

How about just not using weak functions? Weak functions have annoying issues like this, and they have trouble generating good code. I much prefer the pattern:

in arch header:
extern void arch_func(whatever);
#define arch_func arch_func

in generic header:
#ifndef arch_func
static inline void arch_func(whatever) ...
#endif
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-16 06:58    [W:0.067 / U:0.672 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site