Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220223135820.2252470-1-anders.roxell@linaro.org>
 <20220223135820.2252470-2-anders.roxell@linaro.org> <1645670923.t0z533n7uu.astroid@bobo.none>
 <1645678884.dsm10mudmp.astroid@bobo.none> <CAK8P3a28XEN7aH-WdR=doBQKGskiTAeNsjbfvaD5YqEZNM=v0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <1645694174.z03tip9set.astroid@bobo.none>
In-Reply-To: <1645694174.z03tip9set.astroid@bobo.none>
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date:   Thu, 24 Feb 2022 11:20:33 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a1LgZkAV2wX03hAgx527MuiFt5ABWFp1bGdsTGc=8OmMg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] powerpc: fix build errors
To:     Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        "# 3.4.x" <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 11:11 AM Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Arnd Bergmann's message of February 24, 2022 6:55 pm:
> > On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 6:05 AM Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We had the same thing on Arm a few years ago when binutils
> > started enforcing this more strictly, and it does catch actual
> > bugs. I think annotating individual inline asm statements is
> > the best choice here, as that documents what the intention is.
>
> A few cases where there are differences in privileged instructions
> (that won't be compiler generated), that will be done anyway.
>
> For new instructions added to the ISA though? I think it's ugly and
> unecesaary. There is no ambiguity about the intention when you see
> a lharx instruction is there?
>
> It would delinate instructions that can't be used on all processors
> but I don't see  much advantage there, it's not an exhaustive check
> because we have other restrictions on instructions in the kernel
> environment. And why would inline asm be special but not the rest
> of the asm? Would you propose to put these .machine directives
> everywhere in thousands of lines of asm code in the kernel? I
> don't know that it's an improvement. And inline asm is a small
> fraction of instructions.

Most of the code is fine, as we tend to only build .S files that
are for the given target CPU, the explicit .machine directives are
only needed when you have a file that mixes instructions for
incompatible machines, using a runtime detection.

> Right that should be caught if you just pass -m<superset> architecture
> to the assembler that does not include the mtpmr. 32-bit is a lot more
> complicated than 64s like this though, so it's pssible in some cases
> you will want more checking and -m<subset> + some .machine directives
> will work better.
>
> Once you add the .machine directive to your inline asm though, you lose
> *all* such static checking for the instruction. So it's really not a
> panacea and has its own downsides.

Again, there should be a minimum number of those .machine directives
in inline asm as well, which tends to work out fine as long as the
entire kernel is built with the correct -march= option for the minimum
supported CPU, and stays away from inline asm that requires a higher
CPU level.

      Arnd