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=-5.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING, 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 E5F31C43441 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2018 08:00:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CCED2084A for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2018 08:00:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="Syen7fyi" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 9CCED2084A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com 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 S1725964AbeKQSQd (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Nov 2018 13:16:33 -0500 Received: from mail-lj1-f194.google.com ([209.85.208.194]:35626 "EHLO mail-lj1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725849AbeKQSQd (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Nov 2018 13:16:33 -0500 Received: by mail-lj1-f194.google.com with SMTP id x85-v6so22304565ljb.2; Sat, 17 Nov 2018 00:00:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=NPmVE6Z//7mdbjzZgiWeE1qLH0fiwOI7p2Z/iAYJijE=; b=Syen7fyiequm7d8bQcmQPVz3JWVGqMMEXGPflRrAFD9ZmkkIkFhvE254qWtGkMxUx4 2VKUEvsKza2J7VjAI8SdkSYAuhSUMXIA1UgfFAN9gyNn87qOVFL196vERQR1fVhmyMxT 7V2LQATzn2aO9gMoY7NCfn1781wY4sQrip1XKlwgaYnMCQw88GhE5newQtWMewl6aeG8 K+CPtHqptc1Yg8O4vUhFina/4CUZCCs7sqzWq2ZzoTw4IWY8djL21szLfxtzYxdl3VJo dLhccgR/BzrcasCK5Chvk/CqK6QmeN2uSitgZw7WPg9TQpfs8wACHNfN0WswN4F0PyoK J1gA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NPmVE6Z//7mdbjzZgiWeE1qLH0fiwOI7p2Z/iAYJijE=; b=tTHgjrsNxhmivOFAPSFmWlR8FXP9EfZO9jd8oypTDIakuSSZheM9J4FB1V8tnB1BdB lDkXbBDBJIaKtudFjWMn+Dbq46zVr2BXWNmCTFZCGeo9no95ZMwzZCDY1OED0w+MfFpn ofpXKh2vI6z0dbeU9XIFzBnVDyUpTTHfubCeDQVcyPOvyICL+/IU4XbcQ+9bCgsq/3Hs ZSnFbTaWjy8hFFJ18RW4sxlfUeGyG58pw8N6nH6w9yqrscqkkkGE9t9+k23+GYealPnI vzhPn+SI6Ne1MGpzkPl88VxlIuHS7NRwoC8T5KBOqkOWjJlgXvsGZ0187a+7wR+DNArl 33eA== X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gJp4x82pMCz+rWE94Fw1cAb4/2r+CDVzmyahkzIQJ64gIwOlJUq KJbJfZvgRcCWu0z2LhY3dROy3uyo4DBFCm/2zBc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/XssBmWLLbPiHcyqcnseW87gPuZGDVCIcUFNENgfL3/pFMO4SFW4iO5T4p4jZlZ9ZPnc5PFecJjNB7QstH4YcI= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:83d7:: with SMTP id s23-v6mr3436353ljh.139.1542441640429; Sat, 17 Nov 2018 00:00:40 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20181031111444.3472-1-malat@debian.org> In-Reply-To: From: Miguel Ojeda Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 09:00:29 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove old GCC version implementation To: Masahiro Yamada Cc: malat@debian.org, Michal Marek , linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:14 PM Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 8:28 PM Miguel Ojeda > wrote: > > > > By the way, is it possible that scripts/ and similar stuff uses > > directly include/linux/compiler_attributes.h (whenever it hits > > mainline, see https://github.com/ojeda/linux/blob/compiler-attributes/include/linux/compiler_attributes.h > > )? It is a header that does not depend on anything, so it could easily > > be shared; and would avoid having to maintain two sets of attributes. > > Let me know, I can take a look at it if you think it is a good idea. Landed a couple of weeks ago. > No. > I want to share a header file between kernel and host-tools > only when we need to do so. > > In this case, it is wrong to use the linker magic for the host tool > if you look at the so ugly #if defined(__MACH__) part. Do you mean this line? #define SECTION(name) __attribute__((section("__TEXT, " #name))) I would say having exceptions is fine, i.e. the idea was to reduce "duplicated" definitions. In this case, the #define has a different name and style, so I would say it is clear. Anyway, if the policy is not sharing headers at all, that is fine! Cheers, Miguel