Re: [RFC PATCH next-20200930] treewide: Convert macro and uses of __section(foo) to __section("foo")
On Tue, 2020-10-06 at 00:34 +, Joel Stanley wrote: > arch/powerpc/boot is the powerpc wrapper, and it's not built with the > same includes or flags as the rest of the kernel. It doesn't include > any of the headers in the top level include/ directory for hysterical > raisins. > > The straightforward fix would be to exclude this directory from your script. I agree and that's why I submitted another script that does just that. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/75393e5ddc272dc7403de74d645e6c6e0f4e70eb.ca...@perches.com/
Re: [RFC PATCH next-20200930] treewide: Convert macro and uses of __section(foo) to __section("foo")
On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 1:19 PM Joe Perches wrote: > > On Thu, 2020-10-01 at 14:39 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrch/ote: > > Hi! > > > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 12:15:39PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > > > > So it looks like the best option is to exclude these > > > > 2 files from conversion. > > > > > > Agreed. Nevertheless, is there any reason arch/powerpc/* should not be > > > compiling cleanly with compiler.h? (CC'ing the rest of the PowerPC > > > reviewers and ML). > > > > You need to #include compiler_types.h to get this #define? > > Actually no, you need to add > > #include > > to both files and then it builds properly. > > Ideally though nothing should include this file directly. That's because Kbuild injects it via command line flag `-include`. (Well, it injects compiler_types.h which includes this). If part of the tree reset KBUILD_CFLAGS, that `-include` gets dropped. I don't think there's anything wrong with manually including it and adding `-I ` (capital i) if needed. > > > (The twice-defined thing is a warning, not an error. It should be fixed > > of course, but it is less important; although it may be pointing to a > > deeper problem.) > > > > > > Segher > -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers
Re: [RFC PATCH next-20200930] treewide: Convert macro and uses of __section(foo) to __section("foo")
On Thu, 1 Oct 2020 at 20:19, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Thu, 2020-10-01 at 14:39 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrch/ote: > > Hi! > > > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 12:15:39PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > > > > So it looks like the best option is to exclude these > > > > 2 files from conversion. > > > > > > Agreed. Nevertheless, is there any reason arch/powerpc/* should not be > > > compiling cleanly with compiler.h? (CC'ing the rest of the PowerPC > > > reviewers and ML). > > > > You need to #include compiler_types.h to get this #define? > > Actually no, you need to add > > #include > > to both files and then it builds properly. > > Ideally though nothing should include this file directly. arch/powerpc/boot is the powerpc wrapper, and it's not built with the same includes or flags as the rest of the kernel. It doesn't include any of the headers in the top level include/ directory for hysterical raisins. The straightforward fix would be to exclude this directory from your script. Cheers, Joel
Re: [RFC PATCH next-20200930] treewide: Convert macro and uses of __section(foo) to __section("foo")
On Mon, 2020-10-05 at 11:36 -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> I don't think there's anything wrong with manually including it and adding `-I
> ` (capital i) if needed.
All of this is secondary to the actual change to use
quoted __section("foo") rather than __section(foo)
I'd rather get that done first and then figure out if
additional changes could be done later.
Re: [RFC PATCH next-20200930] treewide: Convert macro and uses of __section(foo) to __section("foo")
On Thu, 2020-10-01 at 14:39 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrch/ote: > Hi! > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 12:15:39PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > > > So it looks like the best option is to exclude these > > > 2 files from conversion. > > > > Agreed. Nevertheless, is there any reason arch/powerpc/* should not be > > compiling cleanly with compiler.h? (CC'ing the rest of the PowerPC > > reviewers and ML). > > You need to #include compiler_types.h to get this #define? Actually no, you need to add #include to both files and then it builds properly. Ideally though nothing should include this file directly. > (The twice-defined thing is a warning, not an error. It should be fixed > of course, but it is less important; although it may be pointing to a > deeper problem.) > > > Segher
Re: [RFC PATCH next-20200930] treewide: Convert macro and uses of __section(foo) to __section("foo")
Hi! On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 12:15:39PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > > So it looks like the best option is to exclude these > > 2 files from conversion. > > Agreed. Nevertheless, is there any reason arch/powerpc/* should not be > compiling cleanly with compiler.h? (CC'ing the rest of the PowerPC > reviewers and ML). You need to #include compiler_types.h to get this #define? (The twice-defined thing is a warning, not an error. It should be fixed of course, but it is less important; although it may be pointing to a deeper problem.) Segher
Re: [RFC PATCH next-20200930] treewide: Convert macro and uses of __section(foo) to __section("foo")
On Thu, 2020-10-01 at 12:15 +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > Hi Joe, Buenas Miguel. > On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 12:56 AM Joe Perches wrote: > > So I installed the powerpc cross compiler, and > > nope, that doesn't work, it makes a mess. > > Thanks a lot for reviving the script and sending the treewide cleanup! No charge... I think the end result is cleaner and more obvious. > > So it looks like the best option is to exclude these > > 2 files from conversion. > > Agreed. Nevertheless, is there any reason arch/powerpc/* should not be > compiling cleanly with compiler.h? (CC'ing the rest of the PowerPC > reviewers and ML). That's not a can of worms I care to open. Perhaps the powerpc folk can do some fishing.
Re: [RFC PATCH next-20200930] treewide: Convert macro and uses of __section(foo) to __section("foo")
Hi Joe, On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 12:56 AM Joe Perches wrote: > > So I installed the powerpc cross compiler, and > nope, that doesn't work, it makes a mess. Thanks a lot for reviving the script and sending the treewide cleanup! > So it looks like the best option is to exclude these > 2 files from conversion. Agreed. Nevertheless, is there any reason arch/powerpc/* should not be compiling cleanly with compiler.h? (CC'ing the rest of the PowerPC reviewers and ML). Cheers, Miguel
