>>> On 05.11.18 at 16:49, <[email protected]> wrote: > On 05/11/18 15:48, Wei Liu wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 08:04:37AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 02.11.18 at 16:55, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/traps.c >>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/traps.c >>>> @@ -298,8 +298,21 @@ static unsigned int write_stub_trampoline( >>>> } >>>> >>>> DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct stubs, stubs); >>>> + >>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PV >>>> void lstar_enter(void); >>>> void cstar_enter(void); >>>> +#else >>>> +static inline void lstar_enter(void) >>>> +{ >>>> + panic("%s called", __func__); >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> +static inline void cstar_enter(void) >>>> +{ >>>> + panic("%s called", __func__); >>>> +} >>>> +#endif /* CONFIG_PV */ >>> Do we really need two separate stubs (and two separate string literals) >>> here? >> I think it is clearer if we have two distinct messages. But I'm not too >> fussed either way really. If you feel strongly about this, I'm happy to >> change it to only one function. > > This is the correct way to do it. __func__ will already be in the > string table, and the format string (being identical) will be merged.
Why would __func__ be in the string table already, for functions containing no other references to it? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
