[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181004085606.GA21151@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 10:56:06 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: hpa@...or.com
Cc: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 04/10] x86: refcount: prevent gcc distortions
* hpa@...or.com <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> It's not just for working around a stupid GCC bug, but it also has a huge potential for
> cleaning up the inline asm in general.
Sorry but that's just plain false. For example this patch:
x86: cpufeature: use macros instead of inline assembly
... adds an extra macro indirection layer called STATIC_CPU_HAS, just to macrofy a single asm()
statement that was perfectly readable and on-topic already...
There are some other cases where macrofying is also a cleanup due to sharing and naming a
common pattern of code, but this is by no means an absolute quality of this approach.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists