Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] make use of gcc 9's "asm inline()"

[Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>]

On 29/08/2019 18.05, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 1:32 AM Rasmus Villemoes
> <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> wrote:
>>
>> But since we #define the identifier inline to attach some attributes,
>> we have to use the alternate spelling __inline__ of that
>> keyword. Unfortunately, we also currently #define that one (to
>> inline), so we first have to get rid of all (mis)uses of
>> __inline__. Hence the huge diffstat.
> 
> Ugh. Not pretty, but I guess we're stuck with it.
> 
> However, it worries me a bit that you excluide the UAPI headers where
> we still use "__inline__", and now the semantics of that will change
> for the kernel (for some odd gcc versions).

Yeah, as I wrote I was aware of that, but didn't have any good ideas, so
I was fishing. Doing

#ifdef __KERNEL__
#define __uapi_inline inline
#else
#define __uapi_inline __inline__
#endif

was one of the bad ideas...

> I suspect we should just bite the bullet and you should do it to the
> uapi headers too. We already use "inline" in a lot of them, so it's
> not the case that we're using __inline__ because of some namespace
> issue, as far as I can tell.
> 
> One option might be to just use "__inline" for the asm_inline thing.
> We have way fewer of those. That would make the noise much less for
> this patch series.

Ah, interesting. I didn't know that was also a compiler provided alias.
It seems to be entirely undocumented -
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Alternate-Keywords.html just mentions
the __inline__ (and __asm__) spellings. But it's clear as day in the gcc
sources

  { "__inline",         RID_INLINE,     0 },
  { "__inline__",       RID_INLINE,     0 },

and has been that way since forever, AFAICT.

So yes, let's just start by getting rid of the __inline define and fix
the staging (+acpi,zstd) users, to allow asm_inline to progress. I'll
respin.

Rasmus