# Re: \[RFC PATCH 1/7\] static\_call: get rid of static\_call\_cond()

- From: Peter Zijlstra \<peterz@infradead.org\>
- Date: 2021-11-09 18:38:43 
- List: linux-arm-kernel
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-arm-kernel/2021/11/1567218
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-arm-kernel/2021/11/1567125/t.md

```text
On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 05:45:43PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> The main reason for the existence of static_call_cond() seems to be that
> in theory, when using the generic implementation of static calls, it may
> be possible for a compiler to elide the indirect call entirely if the
> target is NULL, while still guaranteeing that all side effects of
> argument evaluation occur as expected.
> 
> This is rather optimistic: as documented by an existing code comment,
> both GCC and Clang (version 10) get this wrong, and even if they ever
> get it right, this is far too subtle to rely on for a code path that is
> expected to be used only by the 'remaining' architectures once all the
> best supported ones implement either the out-of-line or inline optimized
> variety of static calls.
> 
> Given that having static_call_cond() clutters up the API, and puts the
> burden on the caller to go and check what kind of static call they are
> dealing with, let's just get rid of the distinction.

No, static_call_cond() signifies the function can be NULL. Both gcc and
clang generate correct (but wildly ineffecient) code for this. Without
static_call_cond() the generic implementation will do a NULL deref.

That is, static_call_cond() does properly encapuslate:

	func = READ_ONCE(key.func);
	if (func)
		func(ARGS);

You can't take that out.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
```