From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: andy@greyhouse.net (Andy Gospodarek) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 09:58:36 -0400 Subject: [RFC arm64] samples/bpf: explicitly exclude sysreg sections with asm macros In-Reply-To: References: <1489101492-15653-1-git-send-email-andy@greyhouse.net> <20170310175229.GC18894@arm.com> <20170310192656.GA13928@C02RW35GFVH8> <20170310204112.GA21382@leverpostej> <20170315183130.GB32819@C02RW35GFVH8.dhcp.broadcom.net> <20170315191741.GB29452@leverpostej> <20170315205404.GA43995@C02RW35GFVH8.dhcp.broadcom.net> <20170316104204.GA31101@leverpostej> <20170316210454.GA53792@C02RW35GFVH8.dhcp.broadcom.net> Message-ID: <20170317135836.GA58086@C02RW35GFVH8.dhcp.broadcom.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:11:59AM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 16/03/17 21:04, Andy Gospodarek wrote: > > > > While I generally agree isn't the entire reason this inline asm exists > > -- to fix a binutils issue? :-) > > Binutils is required to build the arm64 kernel; if certain versions of > binutils packaged by arm64 distros can't cope with certain instructions > we need to use, we have to do what we can to make it build. However, if > LLVM cannot cope with inline assembly on arm64, then it's pretty clear > that the kernel cannot be built with LLVM anyway, thus there is nothing > to work around in that regard. Sorry, you've got a straw man there ;) I know, right? I'll see if I can come up with something that appears to be less fragile and/or intrusive to the arm64 arch code as I'd really like to stop carrying a patch in my devel tree for this.