Hi, Peter,
Ping again. Did you get chances to think about this issue again?
Thanks!
Yonghong
On 4/27/18 9:34 AM, Yonghong Song wrote:
Hi, Peter,
Just wanted to ping again so that you did not miss the email below.
Please let me know your opinion.
Thanks!
Yonghong
On 4/23/18 9:50 AM,
Hi, Peter,
Ping again. Did you get chances to think about this issue again?
Thanks!
Yonghong
On 4/27/18 9:34 AM, Yonghong Song wrote:
Hi, Peter,
Just wanted to ping again so that you did not miss the email below.
Please let me know your opinion.
Thanks!
Yonghong
On 4/23/18 9:50 AM,
Hi, Peter,
Just wanted to ping again so that you did not miss the email below.
Please let me know your opinion.
Thanks!
Yonghong
On 4/23/18 9:50 AM, Yonghong Song wrote:
Hi, Peter,
Please see comments below.
On 4/23/18 3:52 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 11:06:03AM
Hi, Peter,
Just wanted to ping again so that you did not miss the email below.
Please let me know your opinion.
Thanks!
Yonghong
On 4/23/18 9:50 AM, Yonghong Song wrote:
Hi, Peter,
Please see comments below.
On 4/23/18 3:52 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 11:06:03AM
Hi, Peter,
Please see comments below.
On 4/23/18 3:52 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 11:06:03AM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
On 4/20/18 1:19 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
Hurm, so adding __BPF__ for BPF compiles isn't an option? It seems to me
having a CPP flag to identify
Hi, Peter,
Please see comments below.
On 4/23/18 3:52 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 11:06:03AM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
On 4/20/18 1:19 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
Hurm, so adding __BPF__ for BPF compiles isn't an option? It seems to me
having a CPP flag to identify
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 11:06:03AM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
> On 4/20/18 1:19 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Hurm, so adding __BPF__ for BPF compiles isn't an option? It seems to me
> > having a CPP flag to identify BPF compile context might be useful in
> > general.
>
> With "clang -target
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 11:06:03AM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
> On 4/20/18 1:19 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Hurm, so adding __BPF__ for BPF compiles isn't an option? It seems to me
> > having a CPP flag to identify BPF compile context might be useful in
> > general.
>
> With "clang -target
On 4/20/18 1:19 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 09:27:38PM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
This patch adds a preprocessor guard NO_BPF_WORKAROUND around the
asm_volatile_goto based static_cpu_has(). NO_BPF_WORKAROUND is set
at toplevel Makefile when compiler supports asm-goto.
On 4/20/18 1:19 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 09:27:38PM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
This patch adds a preprocessor guard NO_BPF_WORKAROUND around the
asm_volatile_goto based static_cpu_has(). NO_BPF_WORKAROUND is set
at toplevel Makefile when compiler supports asm-goto.
On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 09:27:38PM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
> This patch adds a preprocessor guard NO_BPF_WORKAROUND around the
> asm_volatile_goto based static_cpu_has(). NO_BPF_WORKAROUND is set
> at toplevel Makefile when compiler supports asm-goto. That is,
> if the compiler supports
On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 09:27:38PM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
> This patch adds a preprocessor guard NO_BPF_WORKAROUND around the
> asm_volatile_goto based static_cpu_has(). NO_BPF_WORKAROUND is set
> at toplevel Makefile when compiler supports asm-goto. That is,
> if the compiler supports
Hi, Peter,
Just pinging. Did you get chances to look at this?
[ cc netdev as well so folks are aware of the issue. ]
Thanks!
Yonghong
On 4/14/18 9:27 PM, Yonghong Song wrote:
Commit d0266046ad54 ("x86: Remove FAST_FEATURE_TESTS")
removed X86_FAST_FEATURE_TESTS and make macro
Hi, Peter,
Just pinging. Did you get chances to look at this?
[ cc netdev as well so folks are aware of the issue. ]
Thanks!
Yonghong
On 4/14/18 9:27 PM, Yonghong Song wrote:
Commit d0266046ad54 ("x86: Remove FAST_FEATURE_TESTS")
removed X86_FAST_FEATURE_TESTS and make macro
Commit d0266046ad54 ("x86: Remove FAST_FEATURE_TESTS")
removed X86_FAST_FEATURE_TESTS and make macro static_cpu_has() always
use __always_inline function _static_cpu_has() funciton.
The static_cpu_has() uses gcc feature asm_volatile_goto construct,
which is not supported by clang.
Currently, for
Commit d0266046ad54 ("x86: Remove FAST_FEATURE_TESTS")
removed X86_FAST_FEATURE_TESTS and make macro static_cpu_has() always
use __always_inline function _static_cpu_has() funciton.
The static_cpu_has() uses gcc feature asm_volatile_goto construct,
which is not supported by clang.
Currently, for
16 matches
Mail list logo
