On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 02:43:15PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 23.01.2024 14:37, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 10:22:10AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 22.01.2024 19:17, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> >>> It is bad form to have inter-function fallthrough. It only functions
>
On 23.01.2024 14:37, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 10:22:10AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 22.01.2024 19:17, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> It is bad form to have inter-function fallthrough. It only functions right
>>> now because alignment padding bytes are NOPs.
>>
>> But that's
On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 10:22:10AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 22.01.2024 19:17, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > It is bad form to have inter-function fallthrough. It only functions right
> > now because alignment padding bytes are NOPs.
>
> But that's a requirement anyway in executable sections.
On 22.01.2024 19:17, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> It is bad form to have inter-function fallthrough. It only functions right
> now because alignment padding bytes are NOPs.
But that's a requirement anyway in executable sections.
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/compat/entry.S
> +++
It is bad form to have inter-function fallthrough. It only functions right
now because alignment padding bytes are NOPs.
However, it also interferes with livepatching binary diffs, because the
implicit grouping of the two functions isn't expressed in the ELF metadata.
Signed-off-by: Andrew
