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;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of nokia.com designates
 131.228.2.241 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=131.228.2.241; helo=mailrelay.int.nokia.com;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools: Remove conflicting BITS_PER_LONG define
To:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
CC:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
References: <20180912170232.25258-1-alexander.sverdlin@nokia.com>
 <20180912190107.GA5502@redhat.com> <20180912192129.GB13738@kernel.org>
 <562288b4-aac6-182a-6f75-23d32dbdcad5@nokia.com>
 <20180919130318.GB3717@redhat.com>
From:   Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@nokia.com>
Message-ID: <b9a95224-ece8-a23b-e759-48d3f89b3067@nokia.com>
Date:   Mon, 24 Sep 2018 10:33:20 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180919130318.GB3717@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Sep 2018 08:34:05.5780
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: e789c34d-8bbd-4cb9-af95-08d621f87d54
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 5d471751-9675-428d-917b-70f44f9630b0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=5d471751-9675-428d-917b-70f44f9630b0;Ip=[131.228.2.241];Helo=[mailrelay.int.nokia.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB6PR07MB4199
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hello Arnaldo,

>>>> Em Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 07:02:32PM +0200, Alexander Sverdlin escreveu:
>>>>>   CC       .../tools/objtool/builtin-check.o
>>>>>   ...
>>>>> In file included from .../tools/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/bitsperlong.h:11:0,
>>>>>                  from .../tools/include/asm-generic/bitops/__ffs.h:6,
>>>>>                  from .../tools/include/asm-generic/bitops.h:16,
>>>>>                  from .../tools/include/linux/bitops.h:35,
>>>>>                  from .../tools/include/linux/hashtable.h:13,
>>>>>                  from elf.h:24,
>>>>>                  from check.h:22,
>>>>>                  from builtin-check.c:30:
>>>>> .../tools/include/asm-generic/bitsperlong.h:8:0: error: "BITS_PER_LONG" redefined [-Werror]
>>>>>  #define BITS_PER_LONG (__CHAR_BIT__ * __SIZEOF_LONG__)

[...]

finally I more or less know what happens here. In the actual Linux we have two files defining the
same define:

>> # 1 ".../tools/include/linux/bitops.h" 1

#ifndef BITS_PER_LONG
# define BITS_PER_LONG __WORDSIZE
#endif

>> # 6 ".../tools/include/asm-generic/bitsperlong.h" 2

#ifdef __SIZEOF_LONG__
#define BITS_PER_LONG (__CHAR_BIT__ * __SIZEOF_LONG__)
#else
#define BITS_PER_LONG __WORDSIZE
#endif

So the two defines only work together if bitsperlong.h is included first.
In objtool both files are included and for most people bitsperlong.h is indeed
included first.

> I'll try and get one for building a x86_64 tools/perf,
> tools/lib/{api,bpf,traceevent} to see if I manage to reproduce the
> problem you're reporting.

One way to reproduce the reverted include order is to take a HOST compiler
built against old Linux headers, namely 2.6.30 and older.
This is because of the changes in asm/types.h.

It would be possible to put a guard into bitsperlong.h (#ifndef BITS_PER_LONG),
but it just doesn't look correct to me that we have two files defining the same
thing once quite simple, in the second case even more tricky.

-- 
Best regards,
Alexander Sverdlin.