lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Nov]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: violating function pointer signature
    On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 14:21:36 +0100
    Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

    > I think that as long as the function is completely empty (it never
    > touches any of the arguments) this should work in practise.
    >
    > That is:
    >
    > void tp_nop_func(void) { }

    My original version (the OP of this thread) had this:

    +static void tp_stub_func(void)
    +{
    + return;
    +}

    >
    > can be used as an argument to any function pointer that has a void
    > return. In fact, I already do that, grep for __static_call_nop().
    >
    > I'm not sure what the LLVM-CFI crud makes of it, but that's their
    > problem.

    If it is already done elsewhere in the kernel, then I will call this
    precedence, and keep the original version.

    This way Alexei can't complain about adding a check in the fast path of
    more than one callback attached.

    -- Steve

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2020-11-18 15:08    [W:4.895 / U:0.064 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site