On Mon, 4 Dec 2023, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > On 2023-12-04 08:44, Jan Beulich wrote: > > On 02.12.2023 04:03, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > On Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > On 01.12.2023 03:47, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 29 Nov 2023, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > > > > > > No functional change. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetr...@bugseng.com> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > The preferred way to deviate is to use asmlinkage, but this > > > > > > modification is only > > > > > > the consequence of NUMA on ARM (and possibly PPC) being a work in > > > > > > progress. > > > > > > As stated in the comment above the textual deviation, > > > > > > first_valid_mfn will > > > > > > likely then become static and there would be no need for the comment > > > > > > anymore. > > > > > > This works towards having the analysis for this rule clean (i.e. no > > > > > > violations); > > > > > > the interest in having a clean rule is that then it could be used to > > > > > > signal > > > > > > newly introduced violations by making the analysis job fail. > > > > > > > > > > Please add this text as part of the commit message. It can be done on > > > > > commit. > > > > > > > > I assume you saw my reply on another of the patches in this series as to > > > > asmlinkage use on variables? IOW I think this paragraph would also need > > > > adjustment to account for that. > > > > > > I was going to ask you about that: reading your reply > > > https://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=170142048615336 it is not clear to me > > > what you are asking or suggesting as next step in regard to asmlinkage > > > use on variables. > > > > Either we need a separate attribute, or we need affirmation that calling > > convention attributes are ignored (and going to be going forward) for > > variables, or we need to resort to SAF-* comments. I'm not sure what's > > best (assuming the "affirm" wouldn't really be possible). > > > > Well, gcc does warn on unsupported attributes for the entity which are being > dropped. This appears to be the case for calling convention attributes, as > they are not listed in their documentation for variable attributes, but some > more digging would be required to determine whether that's always the case.
Given that I don't suppose we have many variables that need deviating (probably only 2-3 overall?) I think it is just easier to add a SAF comment.
