From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To: Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net>
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: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 09:18:04 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200217151804.yymflofpbiqjqnnz@treble> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1581734224.3.14@crapouillou.net>
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?
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.
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:[~2020-02-17 15:18 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 [this message]
2020-02-20 1:36 ` Paul Cercueil
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=20200217151804.yymflofpbiqjqnnz@treble \
--to=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul@crapouillou.net \
--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).