search for: 71d8b71

Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "71d8b71".

Did you mean: 71d89718
2018 Dec 17
0
[PATCH v3 04/12] Revert "x86/paravirt: Work around GCC inlining bugs when compiling paravirt ops"
..._opptr -772: .pushsection .parainstructions,"a" - _ASM_ALIGN - _ASM_PTR 771b - .byte \type - .byte 772b-771b - .short \clobber - .popsection -.endm - #endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */ #endif /* _ASM_X86_PARAVIRT_TYPES_H */ diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/macros.S b/arch/x86/kernel/macros.S index 71d8b71..66ccb8e 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/macros.S +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/macros.S @@ -10,4 +10,3 @@ #include <asm/refcount.h> #include <asm/alternative-asm.h> #include <asm/bug.h> -#include <asm/paravirt.h> -- 2.7.4
2018 Dec 17
3
[PATCH v3 00/12] x86, kbuild: revert macrofying inline assembly code
This series reverts the in-kernel workarounds for inlining issues. The commit description of 77b0bf55bc67 mentioned "We also hope that GCC will eventually get fixed,..." Now, GCC provides a solution. https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Extended-Asm.html explains the new "asm inline" syntax. The performance issue will be eventually solved. [About Code cleanups] I know Nadam
2018 Dec 17
3
[PATCH v3 00/12] x86, kbuild: revert macrofying inline assembly code
This series reverts the in-kernel workarounds for inlining issues. The commit description of 77b0bf55bc67 mentioned "We also hope that GCC will eventually get fixed,..." Now, GCC provides a solution. https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Extended-Asm.html explains the new "asm inline" syntax. The performance issue will be eventually solved. [About Code cleanups] I know Nadam