Re: [PATCH -tip v2] x86/percpu: Introduce const-qualified const_pcpu_hot

From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Sat Oct 21 2023 - 11:00:37 EST



* Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> arch/x86/include/asm/current.h | 7 +++++++
> arch/x86/include/asm/percpu.h | 6 +++---
> arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h | 3 +++
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c | 1 +
> arch/x86/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S | 1 +
> include/linux/compiler.h | 2 +-
> 6 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/current.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/current.h
> index a1168e7b69e5..0538d2436673 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/current.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/current.h
> @@ -36,8 +36,15 @@ static_assert(sizeof(struct pcpu_hot) == 64);
>
> DECLARE_PER_CPU_ALIGNED(struct pcpu_hot, pcpu_hot);
>
> +/* const-qualified alias to pcpu_hot, aliased by linker. */
> +DECLARE_PER_CPU_ALIGNED(const struct pcpu_hot __percpu_seg_override,
> + const_pcpu_hot);

The aliasing makes me a bit nervous. Could we at least prefix it a bit more
prominently, like const__pcpu_hot? That way it's immediately obvious at all
usage sites that it's "special".

Thanks,

Ingo