From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 10:22:29 +0000 Subject: [PATCH REPOST 1/5] ARM: kvm: replace push and pop with stdmb and ldmia instrs to enable assembler.h inclusion In-Reply-To: References: <1387558125-3460-1-git-send-email-victor.kamensky@linaro.org> <1387558125-3460-2-git-send-email-victor.kamensky@linaro.org> <20140121011825.GI13432@cbox> <52DE44C4.20503@arm.com> Message-ID: <20140122102229.GB1621@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org [Adding Nico, as the author of the push/pull macros. Background is that kvm is using push to store to the stack and would now like to include assembler.h] On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 06:41:09AM +0000, Victor Kamensky wrote: > On 21 January 2014 01:58, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > How about trying this alternative approach: > > > > It looks like all the users of the push/pop macros are located in > > arch/arm/lib (mostly checksumming code). Can't we move these macros to a > > separate include file and leave the code that uses push/pop (as defined > > by the assembler) alone? > > Marc, personally I am OK with such proposal. I was considering something > along these lines as one of the options. It works for me both ways. If > others agree I am happy to recode it as your suggested. I choose > proposed above patch because kvm arm code came after push and pop > defines were introduced in asm/assembler.h and used in other places. > I am OK either way. I agree that use of push and pop as define names > seems a bit unfortunate, but I don't have any historic visibility here > > Russell, Dave, Will, do you have any opinion on Marc's proposal to > fix this issue? I'm perfectly fine with moving those macros into a lib/-local header file. An alternative is renaming push/pull to something like lspush and lspull and updating the files under lib. Will