All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To: Mathias Krause <minipli@googlemail.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Mason <slash.tmp@free.fr>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: String literals in __init functions
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 00:32:43 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1427441563.20980.7.camel@perches.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+rthh9H4C6b=eGdNmFj3Vb+rHUCPOuaDL1h5i_WXWtNGZYS2A@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 08:05 +0100, Mathias Krause wrote:
> On 26 March 2015 at 22:40, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:49:06 +0100 Mathias Krause <minipli@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Andrew, what's your opinion on such a patch set? Do you too think it's
> >> useful? Or do you share Ingo's fear about the additional maintenance
> >> burden?
> >
> > I don't think the burden would be toooo high, although it will mess the
> > code up a bit.
[]
> > Did anyone ask the gcc developers?  I'd have thought that a function-wide
> >         __attribute__((__string_section__(foo))
> > wouldn't be a ton of work to implement.
> 
> The point is you cannot blindly mark all strings referenced from
> __init / __exit code to end up in a matching string section because
> strings in this code might have to live longer when passed to
> functions keeping a pointer on them.

This is the primary reason I support the pi_<level>/pe_<level>/
printk_init/printk_exit markings.  It's simple and not a large
burden to the coder/reader.  If a few formats aren't marked
appropriately, it's not generally a significant loss, but it
is easily correctable by scripts.



WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: joe@perches.com (Joe Perches)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: String literals in __init functions
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 00:32:43 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1427441563.20980.7.camel@perches.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+rthh9H4C6b=eGdNmFj3Vb+rHUCPOuaDL1h5i_WXWtNGZYS2A@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 08:05 +0100, Mathias Krause wrote:
> On 26 March 2015 at 22:40, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:49:06 +0100 Mathias Krause <minipli@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Andrew, what's your opinion on such a patch set? Do you too think it's
> >> useful? Or do you share Ingo's fear about the additional maintenance
> >> burden?
> >
> > I don't think the burden would be toooo high, although it will mess the
> > code up a bit.
[]
> > Did anyone ask the gcc developers?  I'd have thought that a function-wide
> >         __attribute__((__string_section__(foo))
> > wouldn't be a ton of work to implement.
> 
> The point is you cannot blindly mark all strings referenced from
> __init / __exit code to end up in a matching string section because
> strings in this code might have to live longer when passed to
> functions keeping a pointer on them.

This is the primary reason I support the pi_<level>/pe_<level>/
printk_init/printk_exit markings.  It's simple and not a large
burden to the coder/reader.  If a few formats aren't marked
appropriately, it's not generally a significant loss, but it
is easily correctable by scripts.

  reply	other threads:[~2015-03-27  7:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-03-25 17:56 String literals in __init functions Mason
2015-03-25 17:56 ` Mason
2015-03-25 18:01 ` Joe Perches
2015-03-25 18:01   ` Joe Perches
2015-03-26 12:40   ` Mason
2015-03-26 12:40     ` Mason
2015-03-26 16:13     ` Joe Perches
2015-03-26 16:13       ` Joe Perches
2015-03-26 16:37       ` Mathias Krause
2015-03-26 16:37         ` Mathias Krause
2015-03-26 17:53         ` Joe Perches
2015-03-26 17:53           ` Joe Perches
2015-03-26 20:49           ` Mathias Krause
2015-03-26 20:49             ` Mathias Krause
2015-03-26 21:40             ` Andrew Morton
2015-03-26 21:40               ` Andrew Morton
2015-03-26 21:58               ` Joe Perches
2015-03-26 21:58                 ` Joe Perches
2015-03-26 22:15                 ` Andrew Morton
2015-03-26 22:15                   ` Andrew Morton
2015-03-27  7:16                   ` Mathias Krause
2015-03-27  7:16                     ` Mathias Krause
2015-04-02 16:00                 ` Joseph Myers
2015-04-02 16:00                   ` Joseph Myers
2015-04-02 16:23                   ` Joe Perches
2015-04-02 16:23                     ` Joe Perches
2015-03-27  7:05               ` Mathias Krause
2015-03-27  7:05                 ` Mathias Krause
2015-03-27  7:32                 ` Joe Perches [this message]
2015-03-27  7:32                   ` Joe Perches

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=1427441563.20980.7.camel@perches.com \
    --to=joe@perches.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=minipli@googlemail.com \
    --cc=slash.tmp@free.fr \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.