| Message ID | 20190906154706.2449696-1-arnd@arndb.de |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | ARM: don't export unused return_address() | expand |
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 12:47 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > Without the frame pointer enabled, return_address() is an inline > function and does not need to be exported, as shown by this warning: > > WARNING: "return_address" [vmlinux] is a static EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL > > Move the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() into the #ifdef as well. > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> Reviewed-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
Hi Arnd, On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:47 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > Without the frame pointer enabled, return_address() is an inline > function and does not need to be exported, as shown by this warning: > > WARNING: "return_address" [vmlinux] is a static EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL > > Move the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() into the #ifdef as well. > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> Thanks for your patch! Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c > @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ void *return_address(unsigned int level) > return NULL; > } > Checkpatch doesn't like the empty line above: WARNING: EXPORT_SYMBOL(foo); should immediately follow its function/variable > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(return_address); > + > #endif /* if defined(CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER) && !defined(CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND) */ > > -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(return_address); Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 11:31 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > > Hi Arnd, > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:47 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > Without the frame pointer enabled, return_address() is an inline > > function and does not need to be exported, as shown by this warning: > > > > WARNING: "return_address" [vmlinux] is a static EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL > > > > Move the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() into the #ifdef as well. > > > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> > > Thanks for your patch! > > Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> > > > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c > > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c > > @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ void *return_address(unsigned int level) > > return NULL; > > } > > > > Checkpatch doesn't like the empty line above: > > WARNING: EXPORT_SYMBOL(foo); should immediately follow its function/variable > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(return_address); > > + > > #endif /* if defined(CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER) && !defined(CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND) */ > > > > -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(return_address); > > Gr{oetje,eeting}s, > > Geert > > -- > Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org > > In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But > when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. > -- Linus Torvalds What has happened to this patch? I still see this warning. -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 08:40:39PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 11:31 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Arnd, > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:47 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > > Without the frame pointer enabled, return_address() is an inline > > > function and does not need to be exported, as shown by this warning: > > > > > > WARNING: "return_address" [vmlinux] is a static EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL > > > > > > Move the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() into the #ifdef as well. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> > > > > Thanks for your patch! > > > > Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> > > > > > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c > > > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c > > > @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ void *return_address(unsigned int level) > > > return NULL; > > > } > > > > > > > Checkpatch doesn't like the empty line above: > > > > WARNING: EXPORT_SYMBOL(foo); should immediately follow its function/variable > > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(return_address); > > > + > > > #endif /* if defined(CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER) && !defined(CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND) */ > > > > > > -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(return_address); > > > > Gr{oetje,eeting}s, > > > > Geert > > > > -- > > Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org > > > > In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But > > when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. > > -- Linus Torvalds > > > > What has happened to this patch? > > I still see this warning. Simple - it got merged, it caused build regressions, it got dropped. A new version is pending me doing another round of patch merging. -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up
Hi Russell, On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:45 PM Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 08:40:39PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 11:31 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:47 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > > > Without the frame pointer enabled, return_address() is an inline > > > > function and does not need to be exported, as shown by this warning: > > > > > > > > WARNING: "return_address" [vmlinux] is a static EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL > > > > > > > > Move the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() into the #ifdef as well. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> > > > > > > Thanks for your patch! > > > > > > Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> > > > > > > > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c > > > > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c > > > > @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ void *return_address(unsigned int level) > > > > return NULL; > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > Checkpatch doesn't like the empty line above: > > > > > > WARNING: EXPORT_SYMBOL(foo); should immediately follow its function/variable > > > > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(return_address); > > > > + > > > > #endif /* if defined(CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER) && !defined(CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND) */ > > > > > > > > -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(return_address); > > What has happened to this patch? > > > > I still see this warning. > > Simple - it got merged, it caused build regressions, it got dropped. > A new version is pending me doing another round of patch merging. I believe that was not Arnd's patch, but Ben Dooks' alternative solution[*]? [*] Commit 0b0617e5a610fe12 ("ARM: 8918/1: only build return_address() if needed"), which I discovered in next-20191031 when checking if Arnd's patch was applied.... Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 02:15:00PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Russell, > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:45 PM Russell King - ARM Linux admin > <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 08:40:39PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 11:31 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:47 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > > > > Without the frame pointer enabled, return_address() is an inline > > > > > function and does not need to be exported, as shown by this warning: > > > > > > > > > > WARNING: "return_address" [vmlinux] is a static EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL > > > > > > > > > > Move the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() into the #ifdef as well. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> > > > > > > > > Thanks for your patch! > > > > > > > > Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> > > > > > > > > > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c > > > > > @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ void *return_address(unsigned int level) > > > > > return NULL; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > Checkpatch doesn't like the empty line above: > > > > > > > > WARNING: EXPORT_SYMBOL(foo); should immediately follow its function/variable > > > > > > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(return_address); > > > > > + > > > > > #endif /* if defined(CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER) && !defined(CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND) */ > > > > > > > > > > -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(return_address); > > > > What has happened to this patch? > > > > > > I still see this warning. > > > > Simple - it got merged, it caused build regressions, it got dropped. > > A new version is pending me doing another round of patch merging. > > I believe that was not Arnd's patch, but Ben Dooks' alternative solution[*]? I don't keep track of who did what, sorry. > > [*] Commit 0b0617e5a610fe12 ("ARM: 8918/1: only build return_address() if > needed"), which I discovered in next-20191031 when checking if Arnd's > patch was applied.... -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up
Hi Arnd, On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 2:01 AM Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 02:15:00PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Hi Russell, > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:45 PM Russell King - ARM Linux admin > > <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 08:40:39PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 11:31 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:47 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > > > > > Without the frame pointer enabled, return_address() is an inline > > > > > > function and does not need to be exported, as shown by this warning: > > > > > > > > > > > > WARNING: "return_address" [vmlinux] is a static EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL > > > > > > > > > > > > Move the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() into the #ifdef as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your patch! > > > > > > > > > > Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> > > > > > > > > > > > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c > > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c > > > > > > @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ void *return_address(unsigned int level) > > > > > > return NULL; > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Checkpatch doesn't like the empty line above: > > > > > > > > > > WARNING: EXPORT_SYMBOL(foo); should immediately follow its function/variable > > > > > > > > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(return_address); > > > > > > + > > > > > > #endif /* if defined(CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER) && !defined(CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND) */ > > > > > > > > > > > > -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(return_address); > > > > > > What has happened to this patch? > > > > > > > > I still see this warning. > > > > > > Simple - it got merged, it caused build regressions, it got dropped. > > > A new version is pending me doing another round of patch merging. > > > > I believe that was not Arnd's patch, but Ben Dooks' alternative solution[*]? > > I don't keep track of who did what, sorry. Arnd, I believe this patch is the correct fix. Could you please put it into Russell's patch tracker? (patches@arm.linux.org.uk) > > > > [*] Commit 0b0617e5a610fe12 ("ARM: 8918/1: only build return_address() if > > needed"), which I discovered in next-20191031 when checking if Arnd's > > patch was applied.... > -- > RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ > FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up > According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 06:02:13PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > Hi Arnd, > > > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 2:01 AM Russell King - ARM Linux admin > <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 02:15:00PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > Hi Russell, > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:45 PM Russell King - ARM Linux admin > > > <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 08:40:39PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 11:31 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:47 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > > > > > > Without the frame pointer enabled, return_address() is an inline > > > > > > > function and does not need to be exported, as shown by this warning: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WARNING: "return_address" [vmlinux] is a static EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Move the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() into the #ifdef as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your patch! > > > > > > > > > > > > Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c > > > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c > > > > > > > @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ void *return_address(unsigned int level) > > > > > > > return NULL; > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Checkpatch doesn't like the empty line above: > > > > > > > > > > > > WARNING: EXPORT_SYMBOL(foo); should immediately follow its function/variable > > > > > > > > > > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(return_address); > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > #endif /* if defined(CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER) && !defined(CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND) */ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(return_address); > > > > > > > > What has happened to this patch? > > > > > > > > > > I still see this warning. > > > > > > > > Simple - it got merged, it caused build regressions, it got dropped. > > > > A new version is pending me doing another round of patch merging. > > > > > > I believe that was not Arnd's patch, but Ben Dooks' alternative solution[*]? > > > > I don't keep track of who did what, sorry. > > > Arnd, > > I believe this patch is the correct fix. > Could you please put it into Russell's patch tracker? > (patches@arm.linux.org.uk) Is there something wrong with: fb033c95c94c ARM: 8918/2: only build return_address() if needed I haven't seen any build issues with that. -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up
Hi Russell, On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 6:07 PM Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 06:02:13PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > Hi Arnd, > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 2:01 AM Russell King - ARM Linux admin > > <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 02:15:00PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > Hi Russell, > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:45 PM Russell King - ARM Linux admin > > > > <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 08:40:39PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 11:31 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:47 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > Without the frame pointer enabled, return_address() is an inline > > > > > > > > function and does not need to be exported, as shown by this warning: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WARNING: "return_address" [vmlinux] is a static EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Move the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() into the #ifdef as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your patch! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c > > > > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c > > > > > > > > @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ void *return_address(unsigned int level) > > > > > > > > return NULL; > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Checkpatch doesn't like the empty line above: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WARNING: EXPORT_SYMBOL(foo); should immediately follow its function/variable > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(return_address); > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > #endif /* if defined(CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER) && !defined(CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND) */ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(return_address); > > > > > > > > > > What has happened to this patch? > > > > > > > > > > > > I still see this warning. > > > > > > > > > > Simple - it got merged, it caused build regressions, it got dropped. > > > > > A new version is pending me doing another round of patch merging. > > > > > > > > I believe that was not Arnd's patch, but Ben Dooks' alternative solution[*]? > > > > > > I don't keep track of who did what, sorry. > > > > > > Arnd, > > > > I believe this patch is the correct fix. > > Could you please put it into Russell's patch tracker? > > (patches@arm.linux.org.uk) > > Is there something wrong with: > > fb033c95c94c ARM: 8918/2: only build return_address() if needed > > I haven't seen any build issues with that. Sorry, I had not checked Ben's patch because you said "Simple - it got merged, it caused build regressions, it got dropped." Yup, I've checked it right now, and it looks good to me. But, I do not see that commit in the latest linux-next (next-20191120). Could you really apply it if you have not. Thanks! -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 06:42:52PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > Hi Russell, > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 6:07 PM Russell King - ARM Linux admin > <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 06:02:13PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > Hi Arnd, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 2:01 AM Russell King - ARM Linux admin > > > <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 02:15:00PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > > Hi Russell, > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:45 PM Russell King - ARM Linux admin > > > > > <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 08:40:39PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 11:31 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:47 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Without the frame pointer enabled, return_address() is an inline > > > > > > > > > function and does not need to be exported, as shown by this warning: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WARNING: "return_address" [vmlinux] is a static EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Move the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() into the #ifdef as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your patch! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c > > > > > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c > > > > > > > > > @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ void *return_address(unsigned int level) > > > > > > > > > return NULL; > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Checkpatch doesn't like the empty line above: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WARNING: EXPORT_SYMBOL(foo); should immediately follow its function/variable > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(return_address); > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > #endif /* if defined(CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER) && !defined(CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND) */ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(return_address); > > > > > > > > > > > > What has happened to this patch? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I still see this warning. > > > > > > > > > > > > Simple - it got merged, it caused build regressions, it got dropped. > > > > > > A new version is pending me doing another round of patch merging. > > > > > > > > > > I believe that was not Arnd's patch, but Ben Dooks' alternative solution[*]? > > > > > > > > I don't keep track of who did what, sorry. > > > > > > > > > Arnd, > > > > > > I believe this patch is the correct fix. > > > Could you please put it into Russell's patch tracker? > > > (patches@arm.linux.org.uk) > > > > Is there something wrong with: > > > > fb033c95c94c ARM: 8918/2: only build return_address() if needed > > > > I haven't seen any build issues with that. > > > Sorry, I had not checked Ben's patch because you said > "Simple - it got merged, it caused build regressions, it got dropped." That was 8918/1. Ben fixed his patch, and submitted an updated version. > Yup, I've checked it right now, > and it looks good to me. > > But, I do not see that commit in the latest linux-next > (next-20191120). > > Could you really apply it if you have not. It was applied last Friday and was pushed out there and then. $ git ls-remote zeniv | grep for-next 022eb8ae8b5ee8c5c813923c69b5ebb1e9612c4c refs/heads/for-next $ git lg for-next 022eb8ae8b5e ARM: 8938/1: kernel: initialize broadcast hrtimer based clock event device ... fb033c95c94c ARM: 8918/2: only build return_address() if needed I've no idea why linux-next doesn't have it. -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 09:51:11AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 06:42:52PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > Hi Russell, > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 6:07 PM Russell King - ARM Linux admin > > <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 06:02:13PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > > Hi Arnd, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 2:01 AM Russell King - ARM Linux admin > > > > <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 02:15:00PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > > > Hi Russell, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:45 PM Russell King - ARM Linux admin > > > > > > <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 08:40:39PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 11:31 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:47 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Without the frame pointer enabled, return_address() is an inline > > > > > > > > > > function and does not need to be exported, as shown by this warning: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WARNING: "return_address" [vmlinux] is a static EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Move the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() into the #ifdef as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your patch! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c > > > > > > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c > > > > > > > > > > @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ void *return_address(unsigned int level) > > > > > > > > > > return NULL; > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Checkpatch doesn't like the empty line above: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WARNING: EXPORT_SYMBOL(foo); should immediately follow its function/variable > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(return_address); > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > #endif /* if defined(CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER) && !defined(CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND) */ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(return_address); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What has happened to this patch? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I still see this warning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Simple - it got merged, it caused build regressions, it got dropped. > > > > > > > A new version is pending me doing another round of patch merging. > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that was not Arnd's patch, but Ben Dooks' alternative solution[*]? > > > > > > > > > > I don't keep track of who did what, sorry. > > > > > > > > > > > > Arnd, > > > > > > > > I believe this patch is the correct fix. > > > > Could you please put it into Russell's patch tracker? > > > > (patches@arm.linux.org.uk) > > > > > > Is there something wrong with: > > > > > > fb033c95c94c ARM: 8918/2: only build return_address() if needed > > > > > > I haven't seen any build issues with that. > > > > > > Sorry, I had not checked Ben's patch because you said > > "Simple - it got merged, it caused build regressions, it got dropped." > > That was 8918/1. Ben fixed his patch, and submitted an updated > version. > > > Yup, I've checked it right now, > > and it looks good to me. > > > > But, I do not see that commit in the latest linux-next > > (next-20191120). > > > > Could you really apply it if you have not. > > It was applied last Friday and was pushed out there and then. > > $ git ls-remote zeniv | grep for-next > 022eb8ae8b5ee8c5c813923c69b5ebb1e9612c4c refs/heads/for-next > $ git lg for-next > 022eb8ae8b5e ARM: 8938/1: kernel: initialize broadcast hrtimer based > clock event device > ... > fb033c95c94c ARM: 8918/2: only build return_address() if needed > > I've no idea why linux-next doesn't have it. Okay, apparently linux-next _does_ have it: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/log/arch/arm/kernel/Makefile so I think you're confused. -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 7:07 PM Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 09:51:11AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 06:42:52PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > Hi Russell, > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 6:07 PM Russell King - ARM Linux admin > > > <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 06:02:13PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > > > Hi Arnd, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 2:01 AM Russell King - ARM Linux admin > > > > > <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 02:15:00PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Russell, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:45 PM Russell King - ARM Linux admin > > > > > > > <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 08:40:39PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 11:31 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:47 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Without the frame pointer enabled, return_address() is an inline > > > > > > > > > > > function and does not need to be exported, as shown by this warning: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WARNING: "return_address" [vmlinux] is a static EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Move the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() into the #ifdef as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your patch! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c > > > > > > > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ void *return_address(unsigned int level) > > > > > > > > > > > return NULL; > > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Checkpatch doesn't like the empty line above: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WARNING: EXPORT_SYMBOL(foo); should immediately follow its function/variable > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(return_address); > > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > > #endif /* if defined(CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER) && !defined(CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND) */ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(return_address); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What has happened to this patch? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I still see this warning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Simple - it got merged, it caused build regressions, it got dropped. > > > > > > > > A new version is pending me doing another round of patch merging. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that was not Arnd's patch, but Ben Dooks' alternative solution[*]? > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't keep track of who did what, sorry. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Arnd, > > > > > > > > > > I believe this patch is the correct fix. > > > > > Could you please put it into Russell's patch tracker? > > > > > (patches@arm.linux.org.uk) > > > > > > > > Is there something wrong with: > > > > > > > > fb033c95c94c ARM: 8918/2: only build return_address() if needed > > > > > > > > I haven't seen any build issues with that. > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I had not checked Ben's patch because you said > > > "Simple - it got merged, it caused build regressions, it got dropped." > > > > That was 8918/1. Ben fixed his patch, and submitted an updated > > version. > > > > > Yup, I've checked it right now, > > > and it looks good to me. > > > > > > But, I do not see that commit in the latest linux-next > > > (next-20191120). > > > > > > Could you really apply it if you have not. > > > > It was applied last Friday and was pushed out there and then. > > > > $ git ls-remote zeniv | grep for-next > > 022eb8ae8b5ee8c5c813923c69b5ebb1e9612c4c refs/heads/for-next > > $ git lg for-next > > 022eb8ae8b5e ARM: 8938/1: kernel: initialize broadcast hrtimer based > > clock event device > > ... > > fb033c95c94c ARM: 8918/2: only build return_address() if needed > > > > I've no idea why linux-next doesn't have it. > > Okay, apparently linux-next _does_ have it: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/log/arch/arm/kernel/Makefile > > so I think you're confused. My brain was corrupted. It was my mis-operation of git. I now see it. -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c b/arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c index b0d2f1fe891d..fb0fc1910102 100644 --- a/arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ void *return_address(unsigned int level) return NULL; } +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(return_address); + #endif /* if defined(CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER) && !defined(CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND) */ -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(return_address);
Without the frame pointer enabled, return_address() is an inline function and does not need to be exported, as shown by this warning: WARNING: "return_address" [vmlinux] is a static EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL Move the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() into the #ifdef as well. Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> --- arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) -- 2.20.0