On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 11:26:34 +0100 Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 11:08:36AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 08:52:27AM -0800, Sami Tolvanen wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 7:49 AM Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 11:09:14 +0100 > > > > Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I was aiming my patch for x86/core, but if there's a reason to > > > > > expedite > > > > > them, I can stick it in x86/urgent I suppose. > > > > > > > > > > Just need a reason -- what's this compile error nonsense about, my > > > > > kernels build just fine? > > > > > > > > Masami, > > > > > > > > Do you have a config that fails to build without this fix? If so, can > > > > you > > > > please reply with it, and then this can go in as a quick fix. > > > > > > x86 builds with both CONFIG_GENDWARFKSYMS and CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACER > > > are broken without this fix. Here's how to reproduce: > > > > > > $ make defconfig > > > $ ./scripts/config -e DEBUG_INFO -e DEBUG_INFO_DWARF5 -e MODVERSIONS > > > -e GENDWARFKSYMS -e FUNCTION_TRACER > > > $ make olddefconfig && make -j > > > ... > > > In file included from ./arch/x86/include/asm/asm-prototypes.h:2, > > > from <stdin>:3: > > > ./arch/x86/include/asm/ftrace.h: In function ‘arch_ftrace_get_symaddr’: > > > ./arch/x86/include/asm/ftrace.h:46:21: error: implicit declaration of > > > function ‘get_kernel_nofault’ [-Wimplicit-function-declaration] > > > 46 | if (get_kernel_nofault(instr, (u32 > > > *)(fentry_ip - ENDBR_INSN_SIZE))) > > > ... > > > > It breaks much sooner, complaining about not having dwarf.h.. let me go > > figure out what package provides that :/ > > Bah, ofcourse there's libdwarf-dev and libdw-dev, both providing > dwarf.h. Obviously I installed libdwarf-dev and instead I need libdw-dev > *hate* Agreed. :( > > Anyway, yes, compile now fails as advertised. > > And patch fixes it -- now I need to figure out what to do about urgent, > because applying it on top of Linus' tree will create conflicts with > patches already in tip/x86/mm *sigh*. Hmm, if so, can you pick my patch [1], which does not introduce any additional header including issue? [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/173881156244.211648.1242168038709680511.stgit@devnote2/ Thank you, > > -- Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhira...@kernel.org>
