From: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
David Gow <davidgow@google.com>,
Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@linux.dev>
Cc: 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>,
"Shuah Khan" <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/tools: Drop unlikely definition from insn_decoder_test
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:06:28 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b26a2a43-3c55-4086-88e2-64e65dcfbeb2@linuxfoundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Z9spq9OccwK7vKj7@gmail.com>
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?
thanks,
-- Shuah
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-03-28 21:06 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 [this message]
2025-03-28 21:56 ` Ingo Molnar
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=b26a2a43-3c55-4086-88e2-64e65dcfbeb2@linuxfoundation.org \
--to=skhan@linuxfoundation.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=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=nathan@kernel.org \
--cc=rmoar@google.com \
--cc=sergio.collado@gmail.com \
--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