If the intention is to check i386/x86_64 excluding UML, testing
CONFIG_X86_{32,64} is simpler.
The reason for checking __i386__ / __x86_64__ was perhaps because
lib/raid6/algos.c is built not only for the kernel but also for
testing the library code from userspace.
However, lib/raid6/test/Makefile passes -DCONFIG_X86_{32,64} for
this case. So, I do not see a reason to not use CONFIG option here.
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <[email protected]>
Acked-by: H. Peter Anvin (Intel) <[email protected]>
---
Changes in v2: None
kernel/signal.c | 2 +-
lib/raid6/algos.c | 4 ++--
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
index 5b2396350dd1..db557e1629e5 100644
--- a/kernel/signal.c
+++ b/kernel/signal.c
@@ -1246,7 +1246,7 @@ static void print_fatal_signal(int signr)
struct pt_regs *regs = signal_pt_regs();
pr_info("potentially unexpected fatal signal %d.\n", signr);
-#if defined(__i386__) && !defined(__arch_um__)
+#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
pr_info("code at %08lx: ", regs->ip);
{
int i;
diff --git a/lib/raid6/algos.c b/lib/raid6/algos.c
index df08664d3432..b5a02326cfb7 100644
--- a/lib/raid6/algos.c
+++ b/lib/raid6/algos.c
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ struct raid6_calls raid6_call;
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(raid6_call);
const struct raid6_calls * const raid6_algos[] = {
-#if defined(__i386__) && !defined(__arch_um__)
+#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
#ifdef CONFIG_AS_AVX512
&raid6_avx512x2,
&raid6_avx512x1,
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ const struct raid6_calls * const raid6_algos[] = {
&raid6_mmxx2,
&raid6_mmxx1,
#endif
-#if defined(__x86_64__) && !defined(__arch_um__)
+#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
#ifdef CONFIG_AS_AVX512
&raid6_avx512x4,
&raid6_avx512x2,
--
2.17.1
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 5:03 PM Masahiro Yamada <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> If the intention is to check i386/x86_64 excluding UML, testing
> CONFIG_X86_{32,64} is simpler.
>
> The reason for checking __i386__ / __x86_64__ was perhaps because
> lib/raid6/algos.c is built not only for the kernel but also for
> testing the library code from userspace.
>
> However, lib/raid6/test/Makefile passes -DCONFIG_X86_{32,64} for
> this case. So, I do not see a reason to not use CONFIG option here.
>
> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <[email protected]>
> Acked-by: H. Peter Anvin (Intel) <[email protected]>
> ---
Sorry, this patch broke UML builds.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/3/27/618
I will drop this patch for tomorrow's linux-next.
CONFIG_X86 is not defined for ARCH=um.
So, I still think it is OK to replace one complicated line
in lib/raid6/x86.h
#if (defined(__i386__) || defined(__x86_64__)) && !defined(__arch_um__)
with:
#ifdef CONFIG_X86
Also, I slightly prefer
#if defined(CONFIG_X86_32) && !defined(CONFIG_UML)
to
#if defined(__i386__) && !defined(__arch_um__)
But, we do not need to rush this now.
This patch does not affect the rest of this series.
Thanks.
> Changes in v2: None
>
> kernel/signal.c | 2 +-
> lib/raid6/algos.c | 4 ++--
> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
> index 5b2396350dd1..db557e1629e5 100644
> --- a/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -1246,7 +1246,7 @@ static void print_fatal_signal(int signr)
> struct pt_regs *regs = signal_pt_regs();
> pr_info("potentially unexpected fatal signal %d.\n", signr);
>
> -#if defined(__i386__) && !defined(__arch_um__)
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
> pr_info("code at %08lx: ", regs->ip);
> {
> int i;
> diff --git a/lib/raid6/algos.c b/lib/raid6/algos.c
> index df08664d3432..b5a02326cfb7 100644
> --- a/lib/raid6/algos.c
> +++ b/lib/raid6/algos.c
> @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ struct raid6_calls raid6_call;
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(raid6_call);
>
> const struct raid6_calls * const raid6_algos[] = {
> -#if defined(__i386__) && !defined(__arch_um__)
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
> #ifdef CONFIG_AS_AVX512
> &raid6_avx512x2,
> &raid6_avx512x1,
> @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ const struct raid6_calls * const raid6_algos[] = {
> &raid6_mmxx2,
> &raid6_mmxx1,
> #endif
> -#if defined(__x86_64__) && !defined(__arch_um__)
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> #ifdef CONFIG_AS_AVX512
> &raid6_avx512x4,
> &raid6_avx512x2,
> --
> 2.17.1
>
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:42 PM Masahiro Yamada <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Also, I slightly prefer
>
> #if defined(CONFIG_X86_32) && !defined(CONFIG_UML)
>
> to
>
> #if defined(__i386__) && !defined(__arch_um__)
I would much prefer that too.
At some point it'd be nice to see this whole mess cleaned up with UML.
I've seen this a few places -- UML thinks its x86, except where it's
not, and then there are problems. For example, a lot of SIMD related
code has this.
Jason