On Wed 2014-04-30 16:30:45, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> These are a base which can be used for kgraft patch generation.
>
> The code was provided by Michael
Should Michael Matz sign it off, then?
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <jsl...@suse.cz>
> Cc: Michael Matz <m...@suse.de>
> tools/kgraft/app.c | 35 +
> tools/kgraft/app.h | 7 +
The app is just a dummy to test this on?
> + ./dwarf-inline-tree app.o
> + @echo "inline pairs"
> + ./dwarf-inline-tree app.o | perl it2rev.pl
> + @echo "extract stuff"
> + ./objcopy-hacked --strip-unneeded -j .doesntexist. --keep-symbols
> symlist app.o app-extract.o
Instead of providing local copy of objcopy, should some patch be pushed to FSF?
> +will build most of them, and the check target contains example invocations.
> +The only thing not built automatically is the hacked objcopy
> (objcopy-hacked),
> +as usually the necessary binutils headers aren't installed. You'll
> +have to have (recent) binutils sources, apply the patch objcopy.diff
> +and build it yourself.
Ok, I think it should.
> +The seeding symbol list currently needs to come from a human. It's probably
> +feasible to generate that list for most cases by interpreting a kernel
> +diff. Binary comparison should _not_ be used to generate it.
And then we reach singularity, because computers will now be able to program
themselves? :-).
> +int global_data;
> +
> +static void __attribute__((noinline)) in_app (void)
in_app(.
> +int main ()
main(int argc, int argv[])
And add a comment that this is dummy app for objdump testing?
> +{
> + in_app_global();
> + second_file ();
file(.
> @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
> +static inline void __attribute__((always_inline)) in_app_inline (void)
> +{
> + static int local_static_data;
> + printf ("in_app_inline: %d\n", local_static_data++);
> +}
> +
> +void second_file (void);
Some more spaces before ( need to be deleted.
> +static int __init kgr_patcher_init(void)
> +{
> + /* removing not supported (yet?) */
> + __module_get(THIS_MODULE);
> + /* +4 to skip push rbb / mov rsp,rbp prologue */
What +4 ?
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/kgraft/dwarf-inline-tree.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,544 @@
GPL, authors would be cool here.
> +#define string char*
> +#include "dwarf_names.h"
> +#undef string
Ouch.
> + attrib = attr_in;
> + atname = get_AT_name(dbg, attr);
> +
> + tres = dwarf_whatform (attrib, &form, &err);
> + if (tres != DW_DLV_OK)
> + print_error (dbg, "dwarf_whatform", tres, err);
> + printf("\t\t%-28s%s\t", atname, get_FORM_name (dbg, form));
> + /* Don't move over the attributes for the top-level compile_unit
> + * DIEs. */
> + if (tag == DW_TAG_compile_unit)
> + {
> + printf ("\n");
> + return;
> + }
Is this inherited from GNU code?
> + case DW_AT_allocated:
> + if (ellipsis)
> + return "allocated";
> + else
> + return "DW_AT_allocated";
> + case DW_AT_associated:
> + if (ellipsis)
> + return "associated";
> + else
> + return "DW_AT_associated";
I have strong feeling that this code is autogenerated, or should be
autogenerated. Not
suitable for kernel git.
Also I believe patch for objdump is best reviewed at GNU mailing lists, and not
suitable
for kernel git.
Best regards,
Pavel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
