Re: [PATCH v10 13/18] x86/insn-eval: Add utility functions to get segment selector

[Ingo Molnar]

* Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:25 PM, Ricardo Neri
> <ricardo.neri-calderon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/inat.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/inat.h
> > index 02aff08..1c78580 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/inat.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/inat.h
> > @@ -97,6 +97,16 @@
> >  #define INAT_MAKE_GROUP(grp)   ((grp << INAT_GRP_OFFS) | INAT_MODRM)
> >  #define INAT_MAKE_IMM(imm)     (imm << INAT_IMM_OFFS)
> >
> > +/* Identifiers for segment registers */
> > +#define INAT_SEG_REG_IGNORE    0
> > +#define INAT_SEG_REG_DEFAULT   1
> > +#define INAT_SEG_REG_CS                2
> > +#define INAT_SEG_REG_SS                3
> > +#define INAT_SEG_REG_DS                4
> > +#define INAT_SEG_REG_ES                5
> > +#define INAT_SEG_REG_FS                6
> > +#define INAT_SEG_REG_GS                7
> > +
> 
> linux-next still reports a warning because of this change:
> 
> Warning: synced file at 'tools/objtool/arch/x86/include/asm/inat.h'
> differs from latest kernel version at 'arch/x86/include/asm/inat.h'
> 
> Should the same change be applied to the objtool file in the
> tip:x86/mpx branch?

No, the best flow is that the headers will be synced once both components are 
upstream.

This is an integration artifact - and we don't want to 'pre sync', because what 
happens if Linus has to reject the arch/x86/include/asm/inat.h changes for 
whatever reason, and the tooling changes go upstream first?

Thanks,

	Ingo