On 26/11/2021 14:21, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 26.11.2021 13:33, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> > I understand there's not much to say here, but the title saying just > "annotate" without any context as to the purpose of the annotation > is too little information imo. I guess this then goes for many more > titles in this series.
I really couldn't think of anything useful to say. Lots of these patches are entirely mechanical. > >> --- a/xen/include/xen/hypercall.h >> +++ b/xen/include/xen/hypercall.h >> @@ -18,12 +18,12 @@ >> #include <asm/hypercall.h> >> #include <xsm/xsm.h> >> >> -extern long >> +extern long cf_check >> do_sched_op( >> int cmd, >> XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg); > What purpose does the attribute serve on a declaration? On the surface > I would consider it meaningful only on definitions, like e.g. __init. Because GCC treats cf_check (and nocf_check) as part of the function type. Simply getting it wrong will yield a "definition doesn't match prototype" error. Furthermore, it needs to be visible across translation units so one TU can spot (and complain at) creating a function pointer to a non-local non-endbr'd function. ~Andrew