linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] MIPS: Avoid macro redefinitions

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210923093628.GC7289@alpha.franken.de>
Date:   Thu, 23 Sep 2021 11:36:28 +0200
From:   Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>
To:     Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
Cc:     Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
        Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn>,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        list@...ndingux.net, clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] MIPS: Avoid macro redefinitions

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 10:34:15PM +0100, Paul Cercueil wrote:
> To be able to compile the kernel with LTO, the assembler macros cannot
> be declared in the global scope, or the compiler will complain about
> redefined macros.
> 
> Update the code so that macros are defined then undefined when they are
> used.
> 
> Note that virt support was added in 2.24 and xpa in 2.25. So we still
> need the TOOLCHAIN defines for them.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
> ---
> 
> Notes:
>     v2: Removed commented undef line
> 
>  arch/mips/include/asm/ginvt.h                 |  11 +-
>  .../asm/mach-loongson64/loongson_regs.h       |  12 ++
>  arch/mips/include/asm/mipsregs.h              | 190 +++++++++++-------
>  arch/mips/include/asm/msa.h                   |  34 +++-
>  4 files changed, 155 insertions(+), 92 deletions(-)

applied to mips-next.

Thomas.

-- 
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]