[PATCH] x86/boot: use __noreturn instead of directly __attribute__ definition

[PATCH] x86/boot: use __noreturn instead of directly __attribute__ definition

[Alexander Kuleshov]

arch/x86/boot/boot.h defines a couple functions as die and etc..., with
'noreturn' attribute. Let's use __noreturn macro instead of directly
__attribute__ declaration from the <linux/compiler.h>.

We no need to include <linux/compiler.h> to the arch/x86/boot/boot.h,
because boot.h already includes "bitops.h" which already includes
<linux/compiler.h>.

Signed-off-by: Alexander Kuleshov <kuleshovmail@gmail.com>
---
 arch/x86/boot/boot.h | 7 +++----
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/boot.h b/arch/x86/boot/boot.h
index bd49ec6..3351528 100644
--- a/arch/x86/boot/boot.h
+++ b/arch/x86/boot/boot.h
@@ -305,7 +305,7 @@ void console_init(void);
 void query_edd(void);
 
 /* header.S */
-void __attribute__((noreturn)) die(void);
+void __noreturn die(void);
 
 /* mca.c */
 int query_mca(void);
@@ -314,11 +314,10 @@ int query_mca(void);
 int detect_memory(void);
 
 /* pm.c */
-void __attribute__((noreturn)) go_to_protected_mode(void);
+void __noreturn go_to_protected_mode(void);
 
 /* pmjump.S */
-void __attribute__((noreturn))
-	protected_mode_jump(u32 entrypoint, u32 bootparams);
+void __noreturn protected_mode_jump(u32 entrypoint, u32 bootparams);
 
 /* printf.c */
 int sprintf(char *buf, const char *fmt, ...);
-- 
2.3.3.611.g09038fc.dirty

Re: [PATCH] x86/boot: use __noreturn instead of directly __attribute__ definition

[Andreas Mohr]

Hi,

> We no need to include <linux/compiler.h> to the arch/x86/boot/boot.h,
> because boot.h already includes "bitops.h" which already includes
> <linux/compiler.h>.

"Depends", I'd say (no pun, and intended :).

This currently implicitly working constellation
might break both for:
- boot.h no longer requiring bitops.h
- bitops.h no longer including linux/compiler.h

IMHO explicitly #include:ing parts
which certain code does actively depend on after all
is both a "code honesty"
and a documentation issue ("Hmm, which interfaces does this implementation
depend on? Ah, yeah...")

Food for thought,

Andreas Mohr

P.S.: thanks for your contribution!

-- 
GNU/Linux. It's not the software that's free, it's you.

Re: [PATCH] x86/boot: use __noreturn instead of directly __attribute__ definition

[Alexander Kuleshov]

Hello Andreas,

>
> IMHO explicitly #include:ing parts
> which certain code does actively depend on after all
> is both a "code honesty"
> and a documentation issue ("Hmm, which interfaces does this implementation
> depend on? Ah, yeah...")
>

Yes, before the patch i was in hesitancy, how to be with 'includes'.
To add linux/compiler.h
to the boot.h or do not do it as it already in the bitops.h. That's
why I have added note
about in to the commit message, for getting feedback about this.

Thank you.

Re: [PATCH] x86/boot: use __noreturn instead of directly __attribute__ definition

[Ingo Molnar]

* Alexander Kuleshov <kuleshovmail@gmail.com> wrote:

> arch/x86/boot/boot.h defines a couple functions as die and etc..., with
> 'noreturn' attribute. Let's use __noreturn macro instead of directly
> __attribute__ declaration from the <linux/compiler.h>.
> 
> We no need to include <linux/compiler.h> to the arch/x86/boot/boot.h,
> because boot.h already includes "bitops.h" which already includes
> <linux/compiler.h>.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Kuleshov <kuleshovmail@gmail.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/boot/boot.h | 7 +++----
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/boot.h b/arch/x86/boot/boot.h
> index bd49ec6..3351528 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/boot/boot.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/boot/boot.h
> @@ -305,7 +305,7 @@ void console_init(void);
>  void query_edd(void);
>  
>  /* header.S */
> -void __attribute__((noreturn)) die(void);
> +void __noreturn die(void);
>  
>  /* mca.c */
>  int query_mca(void);
> @@ -314,11 +314,10 @@ int query_mca(void);
>  int detect_memory(void);
>  
>  /* pm.c */
> -void __attribute__((noreturn)) go_to_protected_mode(void);
> +void __noreturn go_to_protected_mode(void);
>  
>  /* pmjump.S */
> -void __attribute__((noreturn))
> -	protected_mode_jump(u32 entrypoint, u32 bootparams);
> +void __noreturn protected_mode_jump(u32 entrypoint, u32 bootparams);
>  
>  /* printf.c */
>  int sprintf(char *buf, const char *fmt, ...);

Please don't bother producing and sending me such trivial patches 
unless they:

  - fix a real bug (in which case they are not trivial patches anymore)

  - or are part of a larger (non-trivial!) series that does some real, 
    substantial work on this code that tries to:

         - fix existing code
         - speed up existing code
         - or expand upon existing code with new code

The reason I'm not applying your patch is that trivial patches with no 
substance following them up have more costs than benefits:

 - they lead to pointless churn:

    - they take up Git space for no good reason
    - they slow down bisection of real changes
    - they take up (valuable!) reviewer bandwidth
    - they take up maintainer bandwidth

there's literally a million pointless cleanup patches that could be 
done on the kernel, and we don't want to add a million commits to the 
kernel tree.

This applies for this patch but also for other future patches you 
might intend to send for code that I (co-)maintain.

My advice to you is to try to raise beyond newbie patches and write 
something more substantial that helps Linux:

 - take a look at the many bugs on bugzilla.kernel.org and try to 
   analyze, reproduce or fix them

 - go read kernel code, understand it and try to find real bugs.

 - go test the latest kernels and find bugs in it. The fresher the 
   code, the more likely it is that it has bugs.

 - go read kernel code and try to expand upon it

Fortunately it's not hard to contribute to the kernel: there's 
literally an infinite amount of work to be done on the kernel, and I 
welcome productive contributions - but churning out trivial patches 
with no substantial patches following them up is not productive and in 
fact they are harmful once you are not a totally fresh newbie kernel 
developer anymore...

Thanks,

	Ingo

Re: [PATCH] x86/boot: use __noreturn instead of directly __attribute__ definition

[Borislav Petkov]

On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 10:35:27AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> My advice to you is to try to raise beyond newbie patches and write 
> something more substantial that helps Linux:

Yeah, I tried:

https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20150228134832.GB11038@pd.tnic
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20150305181755.GL3915@pd.tnic

Let's see whether he listens to you. My suggestions and genuine desire
to help were a pure waste of time.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--

Re: [PATCH] x86/boot: use __noreturn instead of directly __attribute__ definition

[Alexander Kuleshov]

Hello Ingo and Borislav,

2015-04-07 14:56 GMT+06:00 Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 10:35:27AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> My advice to you is to try to raise beyond newbie patches and write
>> something more substantial that helps Linux:
>
> Yeah, I tried:
>
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20150228134832.GB11038@pd.tnic
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20150305181755.GL3915@pd.tnic

That's true.

>
> My suggestions and genuine desire to help were a pure waste of time.

No, it weren't. It was my last trivial patch and until I'll start to
do that - useful.
I really don't want to waste time of community on trifles.

Thank you.