From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yonghong Song Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/cpufeature: guard asm_volatile_goto usage with CC_HAVE_ASM_GOTO Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2018 13:30:56 -0700 Message-ID: <339b047f-7886-967b-08e0-703cd892de30@fb.com> References: <20180410204259.3981586-1-yhs@fb.com> <20180410210716.GI4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <552d5866-912e-afde-f25a-77ae8390816d@fb.com> <20180413181924.GT4064@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20180414101112.GX4064@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , , , , , Thomas Gleixner , netdev , Jesper Dangaard Brouer To: Peter Zijlstra , Alexei Starovoitov Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180414101112.GX4064@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 4/14/18 3:11 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 01:42:14PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >> On 4/13/18 11:19 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 02:28:04PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >>>> Instead of >>>> #ifdef CC_HAVE_ASM_GOTO >>>> we can replace it with >>>> #ifndef __BPF__ >>>> or some other name, >>> >>> I would prefer the BPF specific hack; otherwise we might be encouraging >>> people to build the kernel proper without asm-goto. >>> >> >> I don't understand this concern. > > The thing is; this will be a (temporary) BPF specific hack. Hiding it > behind something that looks 'normal' (CC_HAVE_ASM_GOTO) is just not > right. This is a fair concern. I will use a different macro and send v2 soon. Thanks.