[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKwvOdnB=OfCc_31b=PMjxKewvb3CV2WDwhMWrigviWaHrGMhw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 12:45:20 -0800
From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
apinski@...vell.com
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>,
x86@...nel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] objtool: prefer memory clobber & %= to volatile & __COUNTER__
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 3:34 PM Segher Boessenkool
<segher@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 03:26:36PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > I'm more confident that we can remove the `volatile` keyword (I was
> > thinking about adding a new diagnostic to clang to warn that volatile
> > is redundate+implied for asm goto or inline asm that doesn't have
> > outputs) though that's not the problem here and will probably generate
> > some kernel wide cleanup before we could enable such a flag.
>
> Its main value is that it would discourage users from thinking volatile
> is magic. Seriously worth some pain!
https://reviews.llvm.org/D118297
PTAL
--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers
Powered by blists - more mailing lists