On Tue 2021-03-23 15:42:01, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> The printk code is already hard enough to understand. Remove an
> unnecessary indirection by renaming vprintk_func to vprintk (adding
> the asmlinkage annotation), and removing the vprintk definition from
> printk.c. That way, printk is implemented in terms of vprintk as one
> would expect, and there's no "vprintk_func, what's that? Some function
> pointer that gets set where?"
>
> The declaration of vprintk in linux/printk.h already has the
> __printf(1,0) attribute, there's no point repeating that with the
> definition - it's for diagnostics in callers.
>
> linux/printk.h already contains a static inline {return 0;} definition
> of vprintk when !CONFIG_PRINTK.
>
> Since the corresponding stub definition of vprintk_func was not marked
> "static inline", any translation unit including internal.h would get a
> definition of vprintk_func - it just so happens that for
> !CONFIG_PRINTK, there is precisely one such TU, namely printk.c. Had
> there been more, it would be a link error; now it's just a silly waste
> of a few bytes of .text, which one must assume are rather precious to
> anyone disabling PRINTK.
>
> $ objdump -dr kernel/printk/printk.o
> 00000330 <vprintk_func>:
> 330: 31 c0 xor %eax,%eax
> 332: c3 ret
> 333: 8d b4 26 00 00 00 00 lea 0x0(%esi,%eiz,1),%esi
> 33a: 8d b6 00 00 00 00 lea 0x0(%esi),%esi
>
> Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <li...@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Nice clean up!
Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmla...@suse.com>
John,
it conflicts with the patchset removing printk safe buffers[1].
Would you prefer to queue this into the patchset?
Or should I push it into printk/linux.git, printk-rework and you would
base v2 on top of it?
Best Regards,
Petr
