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
References: <20181209032715.3466040-1-liuxiaozhou@bytedance.com>
 <CANiq72nqFuJm5f69G-Pc_9QHz+anwaon-WfVsPrkZWah1OP7Fg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANiq72=Sim1rmTBqWx6+t4GpRmZoNAhTppvbhEjOo-T2_g0N2A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKwvOdnven3n6P6i+WGs_TyWZzH+Cw-RwY8oay0gfnQCfxd=_A@mail.gmail.com> <CANiq72nCa=TQvpgcOcLceGTDc+7KxPmD4NCMamqAqV2o5au89A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANiq72nCa=TQvpgcOcLceGTDc+7KxPmD4NCMamqAqV2o5au89A@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Dec 2018 09:47:33 -0800
Message-ID: <CAKwvOd=uKhwdnv0gH3E4_C=_uCGUvsWObpd_asMRX0ZQn4Qbyg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Compiler Attributes: don't pollute userspace with
 macro definitions
To:     Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
Cc:     liuxiaozhou@bytedance.com, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
        Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>,
        paul.burton@mips.com, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 2:02 AM Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 11:25 PM Nick Desaulniers
> <ndesaulniers@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > Moving the __KERNEL__ guard should not affect the kernel, only what
> > userspace sees.  __gnu_inline only affects which
> > implementation/definition you get, so even if userspace doesn't know
> > what the kernel's inline is redefined to, it should not matter as
> > userspace should only ever care about the function signature, which
> > does not change between our definitions of inline.
>
> Hm... I am unsure what you mean by this. Were you replying to me or to
> the original patch?

Justifying my thoughts for ack'ing the original patch.

-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers