lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: linux-next: Tree for November 29 (aesni-intel)
From
Date
On 29.11.2010, 20:54 Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 11/29/10 11:45, Mathias Krause wrote:
>> On 29.11.2010, 20:31 Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>> On 11/29/10 11:21, Mathias Krause wrote:
>>>> On 29.11.2010, 19:54 Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>>>> On 11/29/10 10:26, Mathias Krause wrote:
>>>>>> On 29.11.2010, 17:31 Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:03:35 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Changes since 20101126:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> on i386 builds, I get tons of these (and more) errors:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:841: Error: bad register name `%r12'
>>>>>>> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:842: Error: bad register name `%r13'
>>>>>>> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:843: Error: bad register name `%r14'
>>>>>>> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:844: Error: bad register name `%rsp'
>>>>>>> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:849: Error: bad register name `%rsp'
>>>>>>> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:850: Error: bad register name `%rsp'
>>>>>>> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:851: Error: bad register name `%r9'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> even though the kernel .config file says:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CONFIG_CRYPTO_AES=m
>>>>>>> CONFIG_CRYPTO_AES_586=m
>>>>>>> CONFIG_CRYPTO_AES_NI_INTEL=m
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Should arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S be testing
>>>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
>>>>>>> instead of
>>>>>>> #ifdef __x86_64__
>>>>>>> or does that not matter?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> or is this a toolchain issue?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, __x86_64__ should be a build-in define of the compiler while
>>>>>> CONFIG_X86_64 is defined for 64 bit builds in include/generated/autoconf.h.
>>>>>> So by using the latter we should be on the safe side but if your compiler
>>>>>> defines __x86_64__ for 32-bit builds it's simply broken. Also git grep
>>>>>> showed quite a few more places using __x86_64__ so those would miscompile on
>>>>>> your toolchain, too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it looks like linux-next is just missing
>>>>>> 559ad0ff1368baea14dbc3207d55b02bd69bda4b from Herbert's git repo at
>>>>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/herbert/cryptodev-2.6.git.
>>>>>> That should fix the build issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> The build problem still happens when that patch is applied.
>>>>
>>>> That's weird. So it must be something with your toolchain.
>>>> Can you please post the output of the following commands?:
>>>>
>>>> $ touch /tmp/null.c; cc -m32 -dD -E /tmp/null.c | grep -E 'x86|i.86'
>>>
>>> #define __i386 1
>>> #define __i386__ 1
>>> #define i386 1
>>> #define __i586 1
>>> #define __i586__ 1
>>>
>>>> $ touch /tmp/null.c; cc -m64 -dD -E /tmp/null.c | grep -E 'x86|i.86'
>>>
>>> #define __x86_64 1
>>> #define __x86_64__ 1
>>>
>>> So that's not the problem... and the patch below didn't help.
>>
>> That's odd. The output of the commands looks good so the x86-64 specific code
>> should be left out for 32-bit builds. :/
>>
>>> Sorry that I even asked about that. What next?
>>
>> Can you please post the full error message. Meanwhile I'm checking out a
>> linux-next tree, trying to reproduce your problem.
>>
>
> I just built with "make V=1" to see the full commands that are used, but
> that didn't help me either:
>
> gcc -Wp,-MD,arch/x86/crypto/.aesni-intel_asm.o.d -nostdinc -isystem /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.4.1/include -I/lnx/src/NEXT/linux-next-20101129/arch/x86/include -Iinclude -I/lnx/src/NEXT/linux-next-20101129/include -include include/generated/autoconf.h -D__KERNEL__ -D__ASSEMBLY__ -m32 -DCONFIG_AS_CFI=1 -DCONFIG_AS_CFI_SIGNAL_FRAME=1 -DMODULE -c -o arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.o /lnx/src/NEXT/linux-next-20101129/arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S
>
>
> There are 2945 lines like this:
>
> linux-next-20101129/arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:841: Error: bad register name `%r12'

Well, in my tree (linux-next + 559ad0ff) line 841 is a comment. Albeit without
559ad0ff it's a 'push %r12'. So maybe you should apply the patch just once
more to be sure. ;)

> It's around 311 KB, so I'll just put it here instead of emailing it:
> http://oss.oracle.com/~rdunlap/doc/cry32.out
>
> --
> ~Randy
> *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-29 21:05    [W:0.047 / U:6.900 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site