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=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no 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 C5DB9C433DF for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 08:13:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 970C520829 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 08:13:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=citrix.com header.i=@citrix.com header.b="SqNv6IY3" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 970C520829 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=citrix.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1k1Q9s-0003eY-5F; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 08:12:52 +0000 Received: from us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com ([172.99.69.81]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1k1Q9r-0003eT-2z for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 08:12:51 +0000 X-Inumbo-ID: 9fbc8842-d305-11ea-8e14-bc764e2007e4 Received: from esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com (unknown [216.71.155.144]) by us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id 9fbc8842-d305-11ea-8e14-bc764e2007e4; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 08:12:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=citrix.com; s=securemail; t=1596183170; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=orBigK7HqKlYuFLBbF5hlm/uG7lMoFm/YSH2dLvDWT8=; b=SqNv6IY3Gk+K1hVuwa3SWi532gWiBXAnNLZE35rs9sJpGrqoC0PAsQPu G8R7kGHfcBdp4btagUnGh2dxFBNg4g9g3Q56Xmc6n2vrDJ+iCWATm3xDS xEl+AxXP6lYmbzvzd7t78qMvUoMtByg5y/QsRr0rZWgDIcZHBESRQPXDy k=; Authentication-Results: esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none IronPort-SDR: aTKWflshIQYZiRGFowlSt8uYZHLOxGIFHVqPkTgbEUeY+d3imjLlTXY30yyXRe4XQ6PzRuNy4t H4N7Rr+bgVtqyPVEcJ2CmvItFwmC/jdKykQQaNd5jjdeIKxi2Pi2Qgx6ZzbgUNoEtgzkPVc1Xo 4swGR/UCLnC7Xno15vG4gC+nOM8JaXVxe6gna3a/7Fh8H/rpU2nsUxyVk9Y/WDFzXtxqwzckjN SFvPj98a4cTjnuyuurE96iqeQWhrbYEaJxD1Y4MMCHiOgUOLwd4aa4ZfAvkL4ijMajV4gHXKsv uhs= X-SBRS: 2.7 X-MesageID: 24486609 X-Ironport-Server: esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com X-Remote-IP: 162.221.158.21 X-Policy: $RELAYED X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.75,417,1589256000"; d="scan'208";a="24486609" Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 10:12:40 +0200 From: Roger Pau =?utf-8?B?TW9ubsOp?= To: Jan Beulich Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] x86: replace __ASM_{CL,ST}AC Message-ID: <20200731081240.GA88772@Air-de-Roger> References: <58b9211a-f6dd-85da-d0bd-c927ac537a5d@suse.com> <20200727145526.GR7191@Air-de-Roger> <20200728090618.GZ7191@Air-de-Roger> <32c79b37-a93c-7a72-7c0f-753cf603adfb@suse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <32c79b37-a93c-7a72-7c0f-753cf603adfb@suse.com> X-ClientProxiedBy: AMSPEX02CAS02.citrite.net (10.69.22.113) To AMSPEX02CL02.citrite.net (10.69.22.126) X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" , Wei Liu , Andrew Cooper Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Sender: "Xen-devel" On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 10:05:07AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 28.07.2020 11:06, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 09:47:52PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> On 27.07.2020 16:55, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > >>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 12:48:14PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>>> --- /dev/null > >>>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/asm-defns.h > >>> > >>> Maybe this could be asm-insn.h or a different name? I find it > >>> confusing to have asm-defns.h and an asm_defs.h. > >> > >> While indeed I anticipated a reply to this effect, I don't consider > >> asm-insn.h or asm-macros.h suitable: We don't want to limit this > >> header to a more narrow purpose than "all sorts of definition", I > >> don't think. Hence I chose that name despite its similarity to the > >> C header's one. > > > > I think it's confusing, but I also think the whole magic we do with > > asm includes is already confusing (me), so if you and Andrew agree > > this is the best name I'm certainly fine with it. FWIW: > > > > Reviewed-by: Roger Pau Monné > > > > Please quote the clac/stac instructions in order to match the other > > usages of ALTERNATIVE. > > We're not consistently quoting when there's just a single word, see > in particular spec_ctrl_asm.h. And thinking about it again I also > don't see why we would want or need to enforce quotation when none > is needed. Therefore both here and in patch 2 I'll keep (or make, > when I touch a line anyway) things consistently unquoted where no > quotes are needed. Please let me know if your R-b holds without the > requested adjustment. Yes, I'm fine as long as we are consistent with quoting of single word instructions. Ideally I would like that we quote both single and multi word for consistency, but you are the one doing the work so I'm not going to oppose to not quoting single words. Thanks, Roger.