Re: [PATCH] scripts: headers_install.sh: Normalize __ASSEMBLY__ to __ASSEMBLER__

[Thomas Weißschuh]

On 2026-07-16 20:52:19+0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 16/07/2026 18.40, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > On 2026-07-16 12:24:07+0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > > On 09/03/2026 16.58, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > > > There is an ongoing effort to replace the usage of __ASSEMBLER__ with
> > > > __ASSEMBLY__ throughout the kernel tree, see for example
> > > > commit 287d163322b7 ("arm64: Replace __ASSEMBLY__ with __ASSEMBLER__ in
> > > > non-uapi headers"). The latter is automatically provided by all compilers
> > > > and preprocessors supported by the kernel, so the explicit definitions
> > > > of __ASSEMBLER__ can be removed.
> > > > 
> > > > However the UAPI headers might be used with older (< GCC 3.0) or
> > > > non-GCC-compatible compilers, which do not define __ASSEMBLY__
> > > > automatically.
> > > 
> > > I just had a try with gcc 2.95.4 from a Debian Woody installation, and it
> > > defines __ASSEMBLER__ automatically when compiling *.S files, i.e. gcc 2.95
> > > does not seem to be a problem. So can you point me to a real case where
> > > someone tried to use a user space compiler where __ASSEMBLER__ was not
> > > defined automatically? Otherwise, I think this patch could be reverted
> > > again.
> > 
> > I don't have a specific case I can point you to. My goal was
> > consistency. Therefore I am against reverting the patch as long as
> > both __ASSEMBLER__ and __ASSEMBLY__ are used in the UAPI headers.
> 
> I've got patches for all files ready and posted them a couple of times
> already - the problem is, some maintainers are not responsive / ignoring me
> ... so I'm afraid but I guess we'll be in this inconsistent state for a
> little bit longer...

Yeah, this is how these things usually go...

> > If we want to switch to __ASSEMBLER__ for the UAPI headers today,
> > we should instead invert the logic of this patch to consistently use it
> > everywhere. After all UAPI headers are migrated, the normalization can
> > then be removed.
> That sounds like the better idea to me. Could you maybe send a patch, or
> want me to do it?

As you are the one driving this effort, it would be great if you could
send the patch. If the patch would make it into v7.3 I am also fine with
merging both patches into one if the kbuild maintainers prefer.


Thomas