Re: [PATCH v4 07/14] arm64: Add support for suppressing warning backtraces
Will Deacon <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.ports.ppc.embedded,gmane.comp.video.dri.devel,gmane.linux.kernel.cross-arch,gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel,gmane.linux.documentation,gmane.linux.kernel,gmane.linux.ports.parisc,gmane.linux.ports.riscv,gmane.linux.ports.sh.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <20250313122503.GA7438@willie-the-truck> |
On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 11:43:22AM +0000, Alessandro Carminati wrote: > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/bug.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/bug.h > index 28be048db3f6..044c5e24a17d 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/bug.h > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/bug.h > @@ -11,8 +11,14 @@ > > #include <asm/asm-bug.h> > > +#ifdef HAVE_BUG_FUNCTION > +# define __BUG_FUNC __func__ > +#else > +# define __BUG_FUNC NULL > +#endif > + > #define __BUG_FLAGS(flags) \ > - asm volatile (__stringify(ASM_BUG_FLAGS(flags))); > + asm volatile (__stringify(ASM_BUG_FLAGS(flags, %c0)) : : "i" (__BUG_FUNC)); Why is 'i' the right asm constraint to use here? It seems a bit odd to use that for a pointer. Will