linux-gpio.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: ingenic: Make unreachable path more robust
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:36:57 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1582162617.3.1@crapouillou.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200217151804.yymflofpbiqjqnnz@treble>

Hi Josh,

Le lun., févr. 17, 2020 at 09:18, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> 
a écrit :
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 11:37:04PM -0300, Paul Cercueil wrote:
>>  > >  I don't like the idea that you change this driver's code just 
>> to
>>  > > work around
>>  > >  a bug in objtool, and I don't like the idea of working around a
>>  > > future bug
>>  > >  that shouldn't be introduced in the first place.
>>  >
>>  > It's not an objtool bug.  It's a byproduct of the fact that GCC's
>>  > undefined behavior is inscrutable, and there's no way to 
>> determine that
>>  > it actually *wants* to jump to a random function.
>>  >
>>  > And anyway, regardless of objtool, the patch is meant to make the 
>> code
>>  > more robust.
>>  >
>>  > Do you not agree that BUG (defined behavior) is more robust than
>>  > unreachable (undefined behavior)?
>> 
>>  It's a dead code path. That would be an undefined behaviour, if it 
>> was
>>  taken, but it's not.
> 
> Given your confidence that humans don't introduce bugs, would you
> recommend that we
> 
>   s/BUG()/unreachable()/
> 
> tree-wide?

Of course not.

> Another option would be to remove the unreachable() statement, which
> would actually improve the generated code by making it more compact 
> (16
> bytes of i-cache savings), on top of removing the "fallthrough to next
> function" nastiness.

I'd prefer that, yes.

-Paul

> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-ingenic.c 
> b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-ingenic.c
> index 96f04d121ebd..13c7d3351ed5 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-ingenic.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-ingenic.c
> @@ -2158,7 +2158,8 @@ static int ingenic_pinconf_set(struct 
> pinctrl_dev *pctldev, unsigned int pin,
>  			break;
> 
>  		default:
> -			unreachable();
> +			/* unreachable */
> +			break;
>  		}
>  	}
> 
> 



  reply	other threads:[~2020-02-20  1:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-02-14 16:37 [PATCH] pinctrl: ingenic: Make unreachable path more robust Josh Poimboeuf
2020-02-14 19:02 ` Paul Cercueil
2020-02-14 20:37   ` Josh Poimboeuf
2020-02-15  2:37     ` Paul Cercueil
2020-02-17 15:18       ` Josh Poimboeuf
2020-02-20  1:36         ` Paul Cercueil [this message]
2020-02-14 21:52 ` Randy Dunlap

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1582162617.3.1@crapouillou.net \
    --to=paul@crapouillou.net \
    --cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
    --cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).