All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Jones <andrew.jones@linux.dev>,
	Laurent Vivier <lvivier@redhat.com>,
	kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,  kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,  kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC kvm-unit-tests PATCH] lib: Use __ASSEMBLER__ instead of __ASSEMBLY__
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 14:17:50 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z8ofDmVbhjfLVwQD@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a10378eb-4bff-488c-86f7-b4fec20feb6a@redhat.com>

On Thu, Mar 06, 2025, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 22/02/2025 02.45, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Convert all non-x86 #ifdefs from __ASSEMBLY__ to __ASSEMBLER__, and remove
> > all manual __ASSEMBLY__ #defines.  __ASSEMBLY_ was inherited blindly from
> > the Linux kernel, and must be manually defined, e.g. through build rules
> > or with the aforementioned explicit #defines in assembly code.
> > 
> > __ASSEMBLER__ on the other hand is automatically defined by the compiler
> > when preprocessing assembly, i.e. doesn't require manually #defines for
> > the code to function correctly.
> > 
> > Ignore x86, as x86 doesn't actually rely on __ASSEMBLY__ at the moment,
> > and is undergoing a parallel cleanup.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
> > ---
> > 
> > Completely untested.  This is essentially a "rage" patch after spending
> > way, way too much time trying to understand why I couldn't include some
> > __ASSEMBLY__ protected headers in x86 assembly files.
> 
> Thanks, applied (after fixing the spot that Andrew mentioned and another one
> that has been merged in between)!
> 
> BTW, do you happen to know why the kernel uses __ASSEMBLY__ and not
> __ASSEMBLER__? Just grown historically, or is there a real reason?

AFAICT, it's purely historical.

-- 
kvm-riscv mailing list
kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kvm-riscv

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Jones <andrew.jones@linux.dev>,
	Laurent Vivier <lvivier@redhat.com>,
	kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,  kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,  kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC kvm-unit-tests PATCH] lib: Use __ASSEMBLER__ instead of __ASSEMBLY__
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 14:17:50 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z8ofDmVbhjfLVwQD@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a10378eb-4bff-488c-86f7-b4fec20feb6a@redhat.com>

On Thu, Mar 06, 2025, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 22/02/2025 02.45, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Convert all non-x86 #ifdefs from __ASSEMBLY__ to __ASSEMBLER__, and remove
> > all manual __ASSEMBLY__ #defines.  __ASSEMBLY_ was inherited blindly from
> > the Linux kernel, and must be manually defined, e.g. through build rules
> > or with the aforementioned explicit #defines in assembly code.
> > 
> > __ASSEMBLER__ on the other hand is automatically defined by the compiler
> > when preprocessing assembly, i.e. doesn't require manually #defines for
> > the code to function correctly.
> > 
> > Ignore x86, as x86 doesn't actually rely on __ASSEMBLY__ at the moment,
> > and is undergoing a parallel cleanup.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
> > ---
> > 
> > Completely untested.  This is essentially a "rage" patch after spending
> > way, way too much time trying to understand why I couldn't include some
> > __ASSEMBLY__ protected headers in x86 assembly files.
> 
> Thanks, applied (after fixing the spot that Andrew mentioned and another one
> that has been merged in between)!
> 
> BTW, do you happen to know why the kernel uses __ASSEMBLY__ and not
> __ASSEMBLER__? Just grown historically, or is there a real reason?

AFAICT, it's purely historical.

  reply	other threads:[~2025-03-06 22:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-02-22  1:45 [RFC kvm-unit-tests PATCH] lib: Use __ASSEMBLER__ instead of __ASSEMBLY__ Sean Christopherson
2025-02-22  1:45 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-02-25 13:37 ` Andrew Jones
2025-02-25 13:37   ` Andrew Jones
2025-03-06  9:00 ` Thomas Huth
2025-03-06  9:00   ` Thomas Huth
2025-03-06 22:17   ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2025-03-06 22:17     ` Sean Christopherson

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=Z8ofDmVbhjfLVwQD@google.com \
    --to=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=andrew.jones@linux.dev \
    --cc=kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=lvivier@redhat.com \
    --cc=thuth@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.