[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEEtttUT4D8z9XeUyZdh4LGnNgUP4cXUdLF=Pk1RWVk43C4jHA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 18:17:14 +0800
From: 刘晓舟 <liuxiaozhou@...edance.com>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>,
Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Compiler Attributes: don't pollute userspace with
macro definitions
Hi Miguel,
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 10:59:10PM +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> I wonder if we can/should simply move them into the __KERNEL__ &&
> !__ASSEMBLY__ block that is above, instead. It would be simpler to
> read, and there aren't apparently dependencies to those outside it
> that go after the block.
Yes, this is also more accurate. I will send a v3.
> I took a look at where the macros were at each "step", and, on one
> hand, compiler-gcc.h was (and is) included entirely inside it, which
> is from where most of the macros come originally from. On the other
> hand, not all do: __must_check (the generic version, not the one in
> -gcc.h) and noinline_for_stack were defined in __KERNEL__ (only)
> before commit 815f0ddb346c ("include/linux/compiler*.h: make
> compiler-*.h mutually exclusive"). But anyway using those two in
> assembly does not make sense, right?
>
> What do you think?
A simple grep shows no assembly are using those macros. Pretty sure
it is safe to do it this way.
Thanks,
Xiaozhou
Powered by blists - more mailing lists