Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] bcm-vk: add bcm_vk UAPI | From | Scott Branden <> | Date | Thu, 20 Aug 2020 14:10:22 -0700 |
| |
On 2020-08-20 1:57 p.m., Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 8/20/20 1:55 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 09:37:46AM -0700, Scott Branden wrote: >>> On 2020-08-19 12:00 a.m., Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 05:35:04PM -0700, Scott Branden wrote: >>>>> On 2020-08-18 10:44 a.m., Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:23:42AM -0700, Scott Branden wrote: >>>>>>>>> +#define VK_FWSTS_RELOCATION_ENTRY BIT(0) >>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I thought BIT() was not allowed in uapi .h files, this really works >>>>>>>> properly??? >>>>>>> I did some investigation and it looks like a few other header files in include/uapi also use the BIT() macro: >>>>>>> include/uapi/misc/uacce/uacce.h >>>>>>> include/uapi/linux/psci.h >>>>>>> include/uapi/linux/v4l2-subdev.h >>>>>> Does the header install test target now fail for these? >>>>> I do not understand the question above. make headers_install works. >>>>> But I guess the above headers would have similar issue with the BIT macro. >>>> Try enabling CONFIG_UAPI_HEADER_TEST and see what happens :) >>> I enabled CONFIG_UAPI_HEADER_TEST and then >>> built using "make" and "make headers_install". >>> >>> There didn't appear to be any issue with the BIT macro in the headers. >> FWIW, other subsystems have not been so lucky: >> >> https://git.kernel.org/linus/23b2c96fad21886c53f5e1a4ffedd45ddd2e85ba >> >> It may just be better to avoid BIT(), even if it works "by accident"(?) >> for some header combinations... > Since we ship a copy of unifdef.c in tree, we could certainly teach it > to undo the BIT() definition and replace it with an appropriate constant > definition. That sounds appealing given the rest of the code wants us to use the BIT macro.
| |