[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANiq72mAfJ23PyWzZAELgbKQDCX2nvY0z+dmOMe14qz=wa6eFg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 14:36:06 +0200
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, yhs@...com,
clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Enrico Weigelt <info@...ux.net>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Masayoshi Mizuma <m.mizuma@...fujitsu.com>,
Shaokun Zhang <zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com>,
Alexios Zavras <alexios.zavras@...el.com>,
Allison Randal <allison@...utok.net>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/16] arm64: prefer __section from compiler_attributes.h
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:27 AM Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Nick,
>
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 02:50:45PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > GCC unescapes escaped string section names while Clang does not. Because
> > __section uses the `#` stringification operator for the section name, it
> > doesn't need to be escaped.
> >
> > This antipattern was found with:
> > $ grep -e __section\(\" -e __section__\(\" -r
> >
> > Reported-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>
> > Suggested-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/include/asm/cache.h | 2 +-
> > arch/arm64/kernel/smp_spin_table.c | 2 +-
> > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Does this fix a build issue, or is it just cosmetic or do we end up with
> duplicate sections or something else?
This should be cosmetic -- basically we are trying to move all users
of current available __attribute__s in compiler_attributes.h to the
__attr forms. I am also adding (slowly) new attributes that are
already used but we don't have them yet in __attr form.
> Happy to route it via arm64, just having trouble working out whether it's
> 5.3 material!
As you prefer! Those that are not taken by a maintainer I will pick up
and send via compiler-attributes.
I would go for 5.4, since there is no particular rush anyway.
Cheers,
Miguel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists