[PATCH v2 6/8] arm64: alternatives: have callbacks take a cap

[Jon Hunter]

On 29/09/2022 11:10, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sept 2022 at 11:54, Jon Hunter <jonathanh at nvidia.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 27/09/2022 10:31, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/alternative-macros.h
>>>> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/alternative-macros.h
>>>> index 7e157ab6cd505..189c31be163ce 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/alternative-macros.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/alternative-macros.h
>>>> @@ -2,10 +2,16 @@
>>>>    #ifndef __ASM_ALTERNATIVE_MACROS_H
>>>>    #define __ASM_ALTERNATIVE_MACROS_H
>>>> +#include <linux/const.h>
>>>> +
>>>>    #include <asm/cpucaps.h>
>>>>    #include <asm/insn-def.h>
>>>> -#define ARM64_CB_PATCH ARM64_NCAPS
>>>> +#define ARM64_CB_BIT    (UL(1) << 15)
>>>> +
>>>> +#if ARM64_NCAPS >= ARM64_CB_BIT
>>>> +#error "cpucaps have overflown ARM64_CB_BIT"
>>>> +#endif
>>>
>>>
>>> Some of our builders are failing and bisect is pointing to this commit.
>>> Looks like they don't like the above and I see the following errors ...
>>>
>>>     CC      arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/vhe/debug-sr.o
>>> /tmp/ccY3kbki.s: Assembler messages:
>>> /tmp/ccY3kbki.s:1600: Error: found 'L', expected: ')'
>>> /tmp/ccY3kbki.s:1600: Error: found 'L', expected: ')'
>>> /tmp/ccY3kbki.s:1600: Error: found 'L', expected: ')'
>>> /tmp/ccY3kbki.s:1600: Error: found 'L', expected: ')'
>>> /tmp/ccY3kbki.s:1600: Error: junk at end of line, first unrecognized
>>> character is `L'
>>> /tmp/ccY3kbki.s:1723: Error: found 'L', expected: ')'
>>> /tmp/ccY3kbki.s:1723: Error: found 'L', expected: ')'
>>> /tmp/ccY3kbki.s:1723: Error: found 'L', expected: ')'
>>> /tmp/ccY3kbki.s:1723: Error: found 'L', expected: ')'
>>> /tmp/ccY3kbki.s:1723: Error: junk at end of line, first unrecognized
>>> character is `L'
>>> scripts/Makefile.build:249: recipe for target
>>> 'arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/vhe/debug-sr.o' failed
>>>
>>> Seems that it does not like the 'UL' macro for some reason. Any thoughts?
>>
>>
>> FYI, this issue is seen with GCC6 but GCC7 and beyond appear to work fine.
>>
> 
> Are you using the same version of binutils with those different
> compilers? And which is/are the exact version(s)?

Looks like they are built with different versions ...

GCC6: binutils 2.27.0.20161019
GCC7: binutils 2.28.2.20170706

Jon

-- 
nvpublic