From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAD75C43441 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 13:09:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA661205C9 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 13:09:29 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org BA661205C9 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.de Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728382AbeK3AOr (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Nov 2018 19:14:47 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:56810 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728243AbeK3AOr (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Nov 2018 19:14:47 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4268FAC17; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 13:09:26 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 14:09:25 +0100 (CET) From: Richard Biener To: Borislav Petkov cc: Masahiro Yamada , Segher Boessenkool , Nadav Amit , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , matz@suse.de, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , X86 ML , Sam Ravnborg , Alok Kataria , Christopher Li , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Jan Beulich , Josh Poimboeuf , Juergen Gross , Kate Stewart , Kees Cook , linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org, "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" , Philippe Ombredanne , Thomas Gleixner , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Linus Torvalds , Chris Zankel , Max Filippov , linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: Extend inline asm syntax with size spec In-Reply-To: <20181129130718.GA3070@nazgul.tnic> Message-ID: References: <20181003213100.189959-1-namit@vmware.com> <20181007091805.GA30687@zn.tnic> <20181007132228.GJ29268@gate.crashing.org> <20181008073128.GL29268@gate.crashing.org> <20181009145330.GT29268@gate.crashing.org> <20181129130718.GA3070@nazgul.tnic> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LSU 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 08:46:34PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > But, I'd like to ask if x86 people want to keep this macros.s approach. > > Revert 77b0bf55bc675 right now > > assuming the compiler will eventually solve the issue? > > Yap, considering how elegant the compiler solution is and how much > problems this macros-in-asm thing causes, I think we should patch > out the latter and wait for gcc9. I mean, the savings are not so > mind-blowing to have to deal with the fallout. > > But this is just my opinion. I'd be not opposed to backporting the asm inline support. Of course we still have to be happy with it and install the patch ;) Are you (kernel folks) happy with asm inline ()? Richard. > Thx. > > -- Richard Biener SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg) From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Biener Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: Extend inline asm syntax with size spec Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 14:09:25 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: References: <20181003213100.189959-1-namit@vmware.com> <20181007091805.GA30687@zn.tnic> <20181007132228.GJ29268@gate.crashing.org> <20181008073128.GL29268@gate.crashing.org> <20181009145330.GT29268@gate.crashing.org> <20181129130718.GA3070@nazgul.tnic> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20181129130718.GA3070@nazgul.tnic> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Borislav Petkov Cc: Masahiro Yamada , Segher Boessenkool , Nadav Amit , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , matz@suse.de, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , X86 ML , Sam Ravnborg , Alok Kataria , Christopher Li , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Jan Beulich , Josh Poimboeuf , Juergen Gross , Kate Stewart , Kees Cook , linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org, "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" , Philippe Ombredanne List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 08:46:34PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > But, I'd like to ask if x86 people want to keep this macros.s approach. > > Revert 77b0bf55bc675 right now > > assuming the compiler will eventually solve the issue? > > Yap, considering how elegant the compiler solution is and how much > problems this macros-in-asm thing causes, I think we should patch > out the latter and wait for gcc9. I mean, the savings are not so > mind-blowing to have to deal with the fallout. > > But this is just my opinion. I'd be not opposed to backporting the asm inline support. Of course we still have to be happy with it and install the patch ;) Are you (kernel folks) happy with asm inline ()? Richard. > Thx. > > -- Richard Biener SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg)