Re: [PATCH v8 16/29] arm64: Share arm64 headers with s390

On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 08:55:49AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:

On Wed, 30 Sep 2026 08:28:03 +0100,
Steffen Eiden [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 06:00:12PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 06:19:20AM +0200, Andreas Grapentin wrote:

quoted

On Sep 28 26, Steffen Eiden wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 05:07:52PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Sep 18, 2026 at 03:30:53PM +0200, Steffen Eiden wrote:

quoted

+# Enable all code shared to s390
+KBUILD_CFLAGS	+= -DARM64_S390_COMMON
+KBUILD_AFLAGS	+= -DARM64_S390_COMMON
+KBUILD_CPPFLAGS	+= -DARM64_S390_COMMON

Do we actually need these defines? They seem only to be used as markers
for the awk scripts to extract the definitions. Why do we need the C
preprocessor involved at all? Could we not just have comment markers:

/* ARM64_S390_COMMON_BEGIN */
...
/* ARM64_S390_COMMON_END */

No technically we do not need those. They could be useful if we find out
that AWK is the wrong tool and move to a C Preprocessor + diff based
approach. 

if the ifdev is not closed the compiler will complain, but an 'arm did
not destroy us' verifiaction tool ( I will send one soonish) could do
the same.

iirc the last time we discussed this we didn't think that load-bearing
comments were the right tool here. We also briefly floated the idea of
using a #pragma region based approach, but in the end we went with the
#ifdef preprocessor directives instead, as the least invasive
non-comment marker that was available.

The downside is that the macro affects the preprocessed code. We need to
ensure they don't leak in uapi headers for example. Not a fan of this
approach but I don't have a better suggestion either. At least we could
write them as:

#if ARM64_S390_COMMON == 1

This is a great idea and an improvement. Thanks.

@Marc: Shall I sent a v9 of this series or do you want to pick v8 and I
send this as an improvement once picked?

Please send a v9. That's invasive enough that it warrants it.

quoted

quoted

It would also be useful for the awk scripts look for the paired #endif
rather than relying on the comment at the end of the line. Otherwise
it's not really different from just sticking to comments.

Are you suggesting that the AWK scripts should track the #if% and #endif
in the code and warn or reject if the marked endif for the shared code
does not match pairing with the starting #if? That makes sense yes. I'll
investigate and would add this as an improvement later on.

I think the suggestion is to teach the script about the #if/#endif
nesting, and therefore to not require the trailing comment on #endif
(i.e. the script acts as a normal cpp).

It should only be a matter of counting the #{if,ifdef}s and #endif
past the ARM64_S390_COMMON guard.

Yeah, and the check on the comment anchor could still remain as a rough
consistency check.

Will