Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 22 Aug 2019 13:53:12 -0700 | From | "Luck, Tony" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/5] Further sanitize INTEL_FAM6 naming |
| |
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 12:23:06PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Lots of variation has crept in; time to collapse the lot again.
Conceptually good. But I applied the series on top of tip/master and got a build error:
CC arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.o arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c:1031:19: error: ‘INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_SILVERMONT_X’ undeclared here (not in a function); did you mean ‘INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_SILVERMONT_D’? VULNWL(INTEL, 6, INTEL_FAM6_##model, whitelist) ^~~~~~~~~~~ arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c:1028:35: note: in definition of macro ‘VULNWL’ { X86_VENDOR_##_vendor, _family, _model, X86_FEATURE_ANY, _whitelist } ^~~~~~ arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c:1053:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘VULNWL_INTEL’ VULNWL_INTEL(ATOM_SILVERMONT_X, NO_SSB | NO_L1TF | MSBDS_ONLY | NO_SWAPGS), ^~~~~~~~~~~~ arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c:1031:19: error: ‘INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_GOLDMONT_X’ undeclared here (not in a function); did you mean ‘INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_GOLDMONT_D’? VULNWL(INTEL, 6, INTEL_FAM6_##model, whitelist) ^~~~~~~~~~~ arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c:1028:35: note: in definition of macro ‘VULNWL’ { X86_VENDOR_##_vendor, _family, _model, X86_FEATURE_ANY, _whitelist } ^~~~~~ arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c:1064:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘VULNWL_INTEL’ VULNWL_INTEL(ATOM_GOLDMONT_X, NO_MDS | NO_L1TF | NO_SWAPGS), ^~~~~~~~~~~~ make[3]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:281: arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.o] Error 1
Looks like your scripts didn't anticipate the CPP gymnastics like:
#define VULNWL_INTEL(model, whitelist) \ VULNWL(INTEL, 6, INTEL_FAM6_##model, whitelist)
-Tony
| |