Re: linux-next: Tree for November 29 (aesni-intel)

[Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>]

On 11/29/10 10:26, Mathias Krause wrote:
> On 29.11.2010, 17:31 Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:03:35 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Changes since 20101126:
>>
>>
>> on i386 builds, I get tons of these (and more) errors:
>>
>> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:841: Error: bad register name `%r12'
>> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:842: Error: bad register name `%r13'
>> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:843: Error: bad register name `%r14'
>> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:844: Error: bad register name `%rsp'
>> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:849: Error: bad register name `%rsp'
>> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:850: Error: bad register name `%rsp'
>> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:851: Error: bad register name `%r9'
>>
>> even though the kernel .config file says:
>>
>> CONFIG_CRYPTO_AES=m
>> CONFIG_CRYPTO_AES_586=m
>> CONFIG_CRYPTO_AES_NI_INTEL=m
>>
>> Should arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S be testing
>> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
>> instead of
>> #ifdef __x86_64__
>> or does that not matter?
>>
>> or is this a toolchain issue?
> 
> Well, __x86_64__ should be a build-in define of the compiler while
> CONFIG_X86_64 is defined for 64 bit builds in include/generated/autoconf.h.
> So by using the latter we should be on the safe side but if your compiler
> defines __x86_64__ for 32-bit builds it's simply broken. Also git grep
> showed quite a few more places using __x86_64__ so those would miscompile on
> your toolchain, too.
> 
> But it looks like linux-next is just missing
> 559ad0ff1368baea14dbc3207d55b02bd69bda4b from Herbert's git repo at
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/herbert/cryptodev-2.6.git.
> That should fix the build issue.

The build problem still happens when that patch is applied.

-- 
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***