On 9/26/19 11:56 AM, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > On 9/26/19 9:06 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 07:03:50AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig >>> index 37c610963eee..afe8c948b493 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig >>> @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ config ARM64 >>> select GENERIC_STRNLEN_USER >>> select GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL >>> select GENERIC_GETTIMEOFDAY >>> - select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT) >>> + select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT && >>> COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC) >>> select HANDLE_DOMAIN_IRQ >>> select HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND >>> select HAVE_PCI >>> @@ -313,6 +313,9 @@ config KASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET >>> default 0xeffffff900000000 if ARM64_VA_BITS_36 && KASAN_SW_TAGS >>> default 0xffffffffffffffff >>> >>> +config COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC >>> + def_bool $(success,$(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc --version | head -n 1 | >>> grep -q arm) >> >> Nitpick: I prefer COMPATCC instead of COMPAT_CC for consistency with >> HOSTCC. >> > > Ok, will change this in v2. > >> Now, could we not generate a COMPATCC in the Makefile and use >> $(COMPATCC) here instead of $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc? It really >> doesn't make sense to check that gcc is gcc. >> > > All right, COMPATCC is already in the makefile, I will use it in here. > >> A next step would be to check that COMPATCC can actually generate 32-bit >> objects. But it's not essential at this stage. >> > > We are already checking this making sure that arm is present in the triple > (grep > -q arm). > >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Makefile b/arch/arm64/Makefile >>> index 84a3d502c5a5..34f53eb11878 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/Makefile >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/Makefile >>> @@ -54,19 +54,8 @@ $(warning Detected assembler with broken .inst; >>> disassembly will be unreliable) >>> endif >>> >>> ifeq ($(CONFIG_GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO), y) >>> - CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT ?= $(CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO:"%"=%) >>> - >>> - ifeq ($(CONFIG_CC_IS_CLANG), y) >>> - $(warning CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT is clang, the compat vDSO will not be >>> built) >>> - else ifeq ($(strip $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)),) >>> - $(warning CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT not defined or empty, the compat vDSO >>> will not be built) >>> - else ifeq ($(shell which $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc 2> /dev/null),) >>> - $(error $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc not found, check >>> CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT) >>> - else >>> - export CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT >>> - export CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO := y >>> - compat_vdso := -DCONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=1 >>> - endif >>> + export CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO := y >>> + compat_vdso := -DCONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=1 >>> endif >> >> Has CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO actually been removed from >> lib/vdso/Kconfig? (I haven't checked the subsequent patches). >> >
Missed this, I have the patch ready for that. When this series will be merged, no more architectures will use the macro hence I will send a separate patch to remove it from the common code. -- Regards, Vincenzo
