Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180309080428.atur6wcbb6vtonhz@gmail.com>
References: <20180308080020.22828-1-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
 <20180308080020.22828-13-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20180309074719.y33xe4bjkjsjsaa3@gmail.com>
 <CAKv+Gu-JmM3F0=XCDZFAkK+6pRgmp=7HK2dhY9La9tKbNYFBEg@mail.gmail.com> <20180309080428.atur6wcbb6vtonhz@gmail.com>
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 9 Mar 2018 08:07:11 +0000
Message-ID: <CAKv+Gu86v9-Cj3bxEPWXCMRnE7S76kGdu7to3cOoLMgTTcH_xg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/12] efi: make const array 'apple' static
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 9 March 2018 at 08:04, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> * Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>> > Also, would it make sense to rename it to something more descriptive like
>> > "apple_unicode_str[]" or so?
>> >
>> > Plus an unicode string literal initializer would be pretty descriptive as well,
>> > instead of the weird looking character array, i.e. something like:
>> >
>> >   static efi_char16_t const apple_unicode_str[] = u"Apple";
>> >
>> > ... or so?
>> >
>>
>> is u"xxx" the same as L"xxx"?
>
> So "L" literals map to wchar_t, which wide character type is implementation
> specific IIRC, could be 16-bit or 32-bit wide.
>
> u"" literals OTOH are specified by the C11 spec to be char16_t, i.e. 16-bit wide
> characters - which I assume is the EFI type as well?
>
>> In any case, this is for historical reasons: at some point (and I
>> don't remember the exact details) we had a conflict at link time with
>> objects using 4 byte wchar_t, so we started using this notation to be
>> independent of the size of wchar_t. That issue no longer exists so we
>> should be able to get rid of this.
>
> Yes, my guess is that those problems were due to L"xyz" mapping to wchar_t and
> having a different type in the kernel build and the host build side - but u"xyz"
> should solve that.
>

Excellent!

Do you mind taking this patch as is? I will follow up with a patch
that updates all occurrences of this pattern (we have a few of them),
i.e., use u"" notation and move them to file scope.