[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a3902c4c-64b1-9c49-02fb-d5e4c9b04314@deltatee.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 11:53:02 -0700
From: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
To: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
Stephen Bates <sbates@...thlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 02/10] Makefile: Prepare for using macros for inline
asm
On 2018-11-07 11:01 a.m., Nadav Amit wrote:
> Ideas? Do people care about it?
Just spit balling, but is there a reason we didn't just put the macros
for inline assembly directly in the header? Something like this:
asm(".macro ANNOTATE_UNREACHABLE counter:req\n\t"
"\\counter:\n\t"
".pushsection .discard.unreachable\n\t"
".long \\counter\\()b -.\n\t"
".popsection\n\t"
".endm\n");
#define annotate_unreachable() ({ \
asm volatile("ANNOTATE_UNREACHABLE counter=%c0" \
: : "i" (__COUNTER__)); \
})
It does mean the macros won't be usable in non-inline assembly, without
duplicating them, but do we care about that?
I would have expected people compiling the kernel with distcc to be
fairly common -- it certainly speeds up my kernel compiles quite
significantly and thus saves me a lot of time.
Logan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists