Re: Linux 4.10-rc1

Al Viro
2016-12-26T15:14:27Z

On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 02:23:43PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 05:45:10PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > On 2016/12/26 17:18, Al Viro wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 05:05:37PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
> > >> It looks like we need revert the changes from assembly files.
> >
> > I tested Kefeng's patch and works. more comments below.
> >
> > > Better yet, split the damn thing in two and include the asm-only part.
> >
> > split will cause other places for building errors, because there is no
> >
> > -#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
>
> Huh? It's included only from assembler files, so what would use the other
> parts?

FWIW, my arguments for splitting it are
* asm and non-asm parts have almost no overlap - only
uaccess_{en,dis}able_not_uao (as asm macro and static inline
resp.), but that's it. It's not as if there had been arseloads of
constants shared between C and assembler, etc.
* having no asm/uaccess.h includes left allows to consolidate stuff
into linux/uaccess.h; sure, in this case the stuff getting moved there would be
under ifndef anyway, but "no includes outside of linux/uaccess.h" is easier
to verify than "no includes outside of linux/uaccess.h and arch/arm64/.../*.S"

I can live with reverting those several includes to asm/uaccess.h (all
interesting stuff is under that ifndef), but I think splitting the asm
part away would be cleaner.

PS: if that variant does cause any build errors, I would very much like to
see .config. Hanjun, could you post one that is triggering those?