All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
	"Wei Liu" <wl@xen.org>, "Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] x86: replace __ASM_{CL,ST}AC
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 21:18:15 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9083209c-a5b5-2238-0453-31a730705365@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ea6eeb6d-7af2-97cb-4c11-6e0a81755961@citrix.com>

On 28.07.2020 15:55, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 15/07/2020 11:48, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/arch.mk
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/arch.mk
>> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ $(call as-option-add,CFLAGS,CC,"rdrand %
>>   $(call as-option-add,CFLAGS,CC,"rdfsbase %rax",-DHAVE_AS_FSGSBASE)
>>   $(call as-option-add,CFLAGS,CC,"xsaveopt (%rax)",-DHAVE_AS_XSAVEOPT)
>>   $(call as-option-add,CFLAGS,CC,"rdseed %eax",-DHAVE_AS_RDSEED)
>> +$(call as-option-add,CFLAGS,CC,"clac",-DHAVE_AS_CLAC_STAC)
> 
> Kconfig please, rather than extending this legacy section.

Did you forget for a moment that we're still to discuss this use of
Kconfig before we extend it to further instances? I'm pretty sure I
gave an ack to one of the respective changes of yours only on the
condition that we'd sort out whether this is indeed the way forward,
without a preset outcome (and without reasoning like "let's do it
because Linux does so").

> That said, surely stac/clac support is old enough for us to start using
> unconditionally?

Can't check right now, but I'm sure I wouldn't have introduced the
construct if we could rely on all supported tool chains to have
support for them.

> Could we see about sorting a reasonable minimum toolchain version,
> before we churn all the logic to deal with obsolete toolchains?

Who's "we" here? I see you keep proposing this every once in a
while, but I don't see who's going to do the work. The main reason
why, while I agree we should bump the base line, I don't see myself
do this is because I don't see any even just half way clear
criteria by which to decide what the new level is supposed to be.
Once again I don't think "let's follow what Linux does" is a
suitable approach.

Additionally I fear that with raising the tool chain base line,
people may start considering to raise other minimum versions.
While I'm personally quite fine building my own binutils and gcc
(and maybe a few other pieces), I don't fancy having to rebuild,
say, coreutils just to be able to build Xen.

Maybe a topic for the next community call, which isn't too far
out?

Jan


  reply	other threads:[~2020-07-28 19:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-07-15 10:47 [PATCH 0/4] x86: some assembler macro rework Jan Beulich
2020-07-15 10:48 ` [PATCH 1/4] x86: replace __ASM_{CL,ST}AC Jan Beulich
2020-07-27 14:55   ` Roger Pau Monné
2020-07-27 19:47     ` Jan Beulich
2020-07-28  9:06       ` Roger Pau Monné
2020-07-31  8:05         ` Jan Beulich
2020-07-31  8:12           ` Roger Pau Monné
2020-07-28 13:59       ` Andrew Cooper
2020-07-28 19:24         ` Jan Beulich
2020-07-28 13:55   ` Andrew Cooper
2020-07-28 19:18     ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2020-07-31  8:00     ` Jan Beulich
2020-07-15 10:48 ` [PATCH 2/4] x86: reduce CET-SS related #ifdef-ary Jan Beulich
2020-07-27 15:00   ` Roger Pau Monné
2020-07-27 19:50     ` Jan Beulich
2020-07-28  8:36       ` Roger Pau Monné
2020-07-28 14:29   ` Andrew Cooper
2020-07-28 19:33     ` Jan Beulich
2020-07-15 10:49 ` [PATCH 3/4] x86: drop ASM_{CL,ST}AC Jan Beulich
2020-07-27 15:10   ` Roger Pau Monné
2020-07-28 14:51   ` Andrew Cooper
2020-07-28 19:41     ` Jan Beulich
2020-07-15 10:49 ` [PATCH 4/4] x86: fold indirect_thunk_asm.h into asm-defns.h Jan Beulich
2020-07-27 15:16   ` Roger Pau Monné

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=9083209c-a5b5-2238-0453-31a730705365@suse.com \
    --to=jbeulich@suse.com \
    --cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
    --cc=roger.pau@citrix.com \
    --cc=wl@xen.org \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.