From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: "Nathan Chancellor" <nathan@kernel.org>,
"David Gow" <davidgow@google.com>,
"Brendan Higgins" <brendan.higgins@linux.dev>,
x86@kernel.org, "Rae Moar" <rmoar@google.com>,
"Sergio González Collado" <sergio.collado@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev,
"KUnit Development" <kunit-dev@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/tools: Drop unlikely definition from insn_decoder_test
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:56:33 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z-cbEbqwree_EgVP@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b26a2a43-3c55-4086-88e2-64e65dcfbeb2@linuxfoundation.org>
* Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On 3/19/25 14:31, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > > After commit c104c16073b7 ("Kunit to check the longest symbol length"),
> > > there is a warning when building with clang because there is now a
> > > definition of unlikely from compiler.h in tools/include/linux, which
> > > conflicts with the one in the instruction decoder selftest.
> > >
> > > arch/x86/tools/insn_decoder_test.c:15:9: warning: 'unlikely' macro redefined [-Wmacro-redefined]
> > > 15 | #define unlikely(cond) (cond)
> > > | ^
> > > tools/include/linux/compiler.h:128:10: note: previous definition is here
> > > 128 | # define unlikely(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), 0)
> > > | ^
> > > 1 warning generated.
> > >
> > > Remove the second unlikely definition, as it is no longer necessary,
> > > clearing up the warning.
> > >
> > > Fixes: c104c16073b7 ("Kunit to check the longest symbol length")
> > > Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
> > > ---
> > > arch/x86/tools/insn_decoder_test.c | 2 --
> > > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > I suppose this should be merged into the Kunit tree? The c104c16073b7
> > commit is in -next currently.
> >
> > Anyway:
> >
> > Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> >
>
> Thanks Ingo.
>
> David/Brendan, Okay to apply this for the next rc?
Since the original commit is now upstream, I've picked up this fix for
x86/urgent and we'll send it to Linus in a day or two.
I've added your Ack:
Acked-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
if that's OK to you.
Thanks,
Ingo
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-03-28 21:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-03-18 22:32 [PATCH] x86/tools: Drop unlikely definition from insn_decoder_test Nathan Chancellor
2025-03-19 20:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2025-03-28 21:06 ` Shuah Khan
2025-03-28 21:56 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
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=Z-cbEbqwree_EgVP@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=brendan.higgins@linux.dev \
--cc=davidgow@google.com \
--cc=kunit-dev@googlegroups.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=nathan@kernel.org \
--cc=rmoar@google.com \
--cc=sergio.collado@gmail.com \
--cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox