Message ID | 20230504130755.3181176-1-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
Series | x86/bitops: Drop include of cpufeatureset | expand |
On 04.05.2023 15:07, Andrew Cooper wrote: > Nothing in x86/bitops uses anything from x86/cpufeatureset, and it is creating > problems when trying to untangle other aspects of feature handling. > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> > --- > CC: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> > CC: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com> > CC: Wei Liu <wl@xen.org> > --- > xen/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h | 1 - > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h > index 5a71afbc89d5..aa8bd65b4565 100644 > --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h > @@ -6,7 +6,6 @@ > */ > > #include <asm/alternative.h> > -#include <asm/cpufeatureset.h> Prior to your 44325775f724 ("x86/cpuid: Untangle the <asm/cpufeature.h> include hierachy") it was asm/cpufeature.h that was included here, presumably for the use of X86_FEATURE_BMI1 in __scanbit(). I guess that wants to be asm/cpufeatures.h now instead? Jan
On 04/05/2023 2:20 pm, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 04.05.2023 15:07, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> Nothing in x86/bitops uses anything from x86/cpufeatureset, and it is creating >> problems when trying to untangle other aspects of feature handling. >> >> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> >> --- >> CC: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> >> CC: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com> >> CC: Wei Liu <wl@xen.org> >> --- >> xen/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h | 1 - >> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h >> index 5a71afbc89d5..aa8bd65b4565 100644 >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h >> @@ -6,7 +6,6 @@ >> */ >> >> #include <asm/alternative.h> >> -#include <asm/cpufeatureset.h> > Prior to your 44325775f724 ("x86/cpuid: Untangle the <asm/cpufeature.h> > include hierachy") it was asm/cpufeature.h that was included here, > presumably for the use of X86_FEATURE_BMI1 in __scanbit(). I guess that > wants to be asm/cpufeatures.h now instead? Oh. I missed that, but nothing fails to compile, which means that there's a prior path including cpufeatureset anyway. I think I'll drop this and leave the header rearranging to a later point. I ended up having to do the untangling differently anyway. ~Andrew
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h index 5a71afbc89d5..aa8bd65b4565 100644 --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h @@ -6,7 +6,6 @@ */ #include <asm/alternative.h> -#include <asm/cpufeatureset.h> /* * We specify the memory operand as both input and output because the memory
Nothing in x86/bitops uses anything from x86/cpufeatureset, and it is creating problems when trying to untangle other aspects of feature handling. Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> --- CC: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> CC: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com> CC: Wei Liu <wl@xen.org> --- xen/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)