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;
> }
> }
>
>
next prev parent 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).