On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 05:59:17PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > On 13.07.21 17:52, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 05:41:33PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > On 13.07.21 16:57, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > > [..] > > > > +#define HYPERCALL_FMT_0 > > > > +#define HYPERCALL_FMT_1 , "0" (r2) > > > > +#define HYPERCALL_FMT_2 , "d" (r3) HYPERCALL_FMT_1 > > > > +#define HYPERCALL_FMT_3 , "d" (r4) HYPERCALL_FMT_2 > > > > +#define HYPERCALL_FMT_4 , "d" (r5) HYPERCALL_FMT_3 > > > > +#define HYPERCALL_FMT_5 , "d" (r6) HYPERCALL_FMT_4 > > > > +#define HYPERCALL_FMT_6 , "d" (r7) HYPERCALL_FMT_5 > > > > > > This will result in reverse order. > > > old: > > > "d" (__nr), "0" (__p1), "d" (__p2), "d" (__p3), "d" (__p4), "d" (__p5), "d" (__p6) > > > new: > > > "d"(__nr), "d"(r7), "d"(r6), "d"(r5), "d"(r4), "d"(r3), "0"(r2) > > > > > > As we do not reference the variable in the asm this should not matter, > > > I just noticed it when comparing the result of the preprocessed files. > > > > > > Assuming that we do not care this looks good. > > > > Yes, it does not matter. Please let me know if should change it anyway. > > No, I think this is ok. > Shall I take it via the kvm tree or do you want to take it via the s390 tree? I think this should go via kvm tree. It probably has to wait until next merge window anyway(?).
