From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753946AbdKIQps (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 9 Nov 2017 11:45:48 -0500
Received: from mail-it0-f42.google.com ([209.85.214.42]:51329 "EHLO
        mail-it0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1753439AbdKIQpq (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 9 Nov 2017 11:45:46 -0500
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMYp2I1dAWnjcVSskm3hR9dHlKEl5a6iXvNOb52OcRNAoX2YmcA8yTu7s+hN0QOjvn2alCkKSQ==
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 08:45:42 -0800
From: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>
To: Yury Norov <ynorov@caviumnetworks.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@google.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim.kuvyrkov@linaro.org>,
        Alex Matveev <alxmtvv@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/15] arm64: fix mrs_s/msr_s macros for clang LTO
Message-ID: <20171109164542.GB10540@samitolvanen.mtv.corp.google.com>
References: <20171103171203.107569-1-samitolvanen@google.com>
 <20171103171203.107569-18-samitolvanen@google.com>
 <20171108092555.ta4mkqolunyw6mdr@yury-thinkpad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171108092555.ta4mkqolunyw6mdr@yury-thinkpad>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 12:25:55PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> The patch below uses trick with undefining mrs_s/msr_s immediately
> after use to solve the problem. It works for both gcc and clang.

Great, looks good to me! I tested the patch with LTO and clang's integrated
assembler seems to be happy with it.

> It has solved many problems you also try to solve, and some patches
> are looking very similar.

I haven't had a closer look at the gcc LTO patches yet, but I am definitely
all for using common code where possible.

Sami