Re: [PATCH v4 07/14] arm64: Add support for suppressing warning backtraces
From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Date: 2025-03-13 12:25:13
Also in:
dri-devel, linux-arch, linux-arm-kernel, linux-doc, linux-kselftest, linux-riscv, linux-s390, linux-sh, lkml, loongarch
On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 11:43:22AM +0000, Alessandro Carminati wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
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