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;
From:   Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
CC:     Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] compiler-gcc.h: add asm_inline definition
Thread-Topic: [PATCH v2 4/6] compiler-gcc.h: add asm_inline definition
Thread-Index: AQHVX4jXnzVNLzmXMEaCagqvuSDaIaccP+wAgABalAA=
Date:   Thu, 5 Sep 2019 05:43:05 +0000
Message-ID: <C0D6E68C-AA52-4097-A626-5B8FBC67D445@vmware.com>
References: <20190829083233.24162-1-linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
 <20190830231527.22304-1-linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
 <20190830231527.22304-5-linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
 <CAKwvOdktYpMH8WnEQwNE2JJdKn4w0CHv3L=YHkqU2JzQ6Qwkew@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKwvOdktYpMH8WnEQwNE2JJdKn4w0CHv3L=YHkqU2JzQ6Qwkew@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: vmware.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <B95A2C569ED4C04EB343227BA0A1D812@namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: bd440251-27bc-48fe-f4d1-08d731c3ecce
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 05 Sep 2019 05:43:05.5815
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: b39138ca-3cee-4b4a-a4d6-cd83d9dd62f0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: CFDkdjSonOQarpQq1Bx5dcQ6/7dnV/hhuU+nlFo7wds/7WK9zS+e6zBfyndsYs6HwxqPr3EIwtYuERAAtESKeA==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR05MB6694
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

> On Sep 4, 2019, at 5:18 PM, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> wr=
ote:
>=20
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 4:15 PM Rasmus Villemoes
> <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> wrote:
>> This adds an asm_inline macro which expands to "asm inline" [1] when gcc
>> is new enough (>=3D 9.1), and just asm for older gccs and other
>> compilers.
>>=20
>> Using asm inline("foo") instead of asm("foo") overrules gcc's
>> heuristic estimate of the size of the code represented by the asm()
>> statement, and makes gcc use the minimum possible size instead. That
>> can in turn affect gcc's inlining decisions.
>>=20
>> I wasn't sure whether to make this a function-like macro or not - this
>> way, it can be combined with volatile as
>>=20
>>  asm_inline volatile()
>>=20
>> but perhaps we'd prefer to spell that
>>=20
>>  asm_inline_volatile()
>>=20
>> anyway.
>>=20
>> [1] Technically, asm __inline, since both inline and __inline__
>> are macros that attach various attributes, making gcc barf if one
>> literally does "asm inline()". However, the third spelling __inline is
>> available for referring to the bare keyword.
>>=20
>> Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
>> ---
>> include/linux/compiler-gcc.h   | 4 ++++
>> include/linux/compiler_types.h | 4 ++++
>> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>=20
>> diff --git a/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h b/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
>> index d7ee4c6bad48..544b87b41b58 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
>> @@ -172,3 +172,7 @@
>> #endif
>>=20
>> #define __no_fgcse __attribute__((optimize("-fno-gcse")))
>> +
>> +#if GCC_VERSION >=3D 90100
>=20
> Is it too late to ask for a feature test macro? Maybe one already
> exists?  I was not able to find documentation or a bug on `asm
> inline`.  I'm quite curious how you even found or heard of this
> feature.  To the source we must go...

When I had some free time I wrote a detailed blog post about this issue:
https://nadav.amit.zone/linux/2018/10/10/newline.html

Which later Borislav took to gcc people:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20181007091805.GA30687@zn.tnic/