Excerpts from Christophe Leroy's message of October 15, 2021 3:19 pm:

Le 15/10/2021 à 00:17, Daniel Axtens a écrit :

quoted

Christophe Leroy [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

'func_descr_t' is redundant with 'struct ppc64_opd_entry'

So, if I understand the overall direction of the series, you're
consolidating powerpc around one single type for function descriptors,
and then you're creating a generic typedef so that generic code can
always do ((func_desc_t)x)->addr to get the address of a function out of
a function descriptor regardless of arch. (And regardless of whether the
arch uses function descriptors or not.)

An architecture not using function descriptors won't do much with 
((func_desc_t *)x)->addr. This is just done to allow building stuff 
regardless.

I prefer something like

	if (have_function_descriptors())
		addr = (func_desc_t *)ptr)->addr;
	else
		addr = ptr;

If you make a generic data type for architectures without function 
descriptors as such

typedef struct func_desc {
    char addr[0];
} func_desc_t;

Then you can do that with no if. The downside is your addr has to be 
char * and it's maybe not helpful to be so "clever".

quoted

  - why pick ppc64_opd_entry over func_descr_t?

Good question. At the begining it was because it was in UAPI headers, 
and also because it was the one used in our 
dereference_function_descriptor().

But at the end maybe that's not the more logical choice. I need to look 
a bit more.

I would prefer the func_descr_t (with 'toc' and 'env') if you're going 
to change it.

Thanks,
Nick