On 11/27/19 4:35 PM, Jürgen Groß wrote: > On 27.11.19 17:25, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 27.11.2019 17:21, George Dunlap wrote: >>> On 11/27/19 4:14 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 27.11.2019 17:01, Roger Pau Monne wrote: >>>>> Live-patching requires unique symbols, and sadly the clang build >>>>> generates a lot of duplicate symbols: >>>>> >>>>> Duplicate symbol 'asid.c#get_cpu_info' (ffff82d0803032c0 != >>>>> ffff82d0802e0f50) >>>>> Duplicate symbol 'asid.c#get_cpu_info_from_stack' (ffff82d0802e1080 >>>>> != ffff82d0803032f0) >>>>> Duplicate symbol 'ats.c#__list_add' (ffff82d080260a00 != >>>>> ffff82d080267c70) >>>>> Duplicate symbol 'boot.c#constant_test_bit' (ffff82d08040ea60 != >>>>> ffff82d0804372f0) >>>>> Duplicate symbol 'common.c#clear_bit' (ffff82d080332440 != >>>>> ffff82d0802d33b0) >>>>> Duplicate symbol 'common.c#constant_test_bit' (ffff82d080332340 != >>>>> ffff82d0802d2220) >>>>> Duplicate symbol 'common.c#cpumask_check' (ffff82d0802d3370 != >>>>> ffff82d080337b60) >>>>> Duplicate symbol 'common.c#get_cpu_info' (ffff82d0802d22b0 != >>>>> ffff82d080331590) >>>>> Duplicate symbol 'common.c#get_cpu_info_from_stack' >>>>> (ffff82d0802d31c0 != ffff82d0803374b0) >>>>> Duplicate symbol 'common.c#pfn_to_pdx' (ffff82d0802d3270 != >>>>> ffff82d080331e00) >>>>> Duplicate symbol 'common.c#test_and_set_bit' (ffff82d0802d3360 != >>>>> ffff82d080332250) >>>>> Duplicate symbol 'common.c#variable_clear_bit' (ffff82d0802d2270 != >>>>> ffff82d080337b50) >>>>> Duplicate symbol 'compat.c#get_cpu_info' (ffff82d08026eab0 != >>>>> ffff82d080200460) >>>>> Duplicate symbol 'compat.c#get_cpu_info_from_stack' >>>>> (ffff82d08026ebd0 != ffff82d080200f70) >>>>> Duplicate symbol 'cpu_idle.c#get_cpu_info' (ffff82d0802ccb00 != >>>>> ffff82d08035fcc0) >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>> For the time being disable live-patching when building with clang, >>>>> since duplicate symbols will trigger a build failure because >>>>> ENFORCE_UNIQUE_SYMBOLS is now also enabled by default in conjunction >>>>> with live-patching. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger....@citrix.com> >>>> >>>> To be honest, as indicated before I'm inclined to nak this patch >>>> on the basis that a proper solution has been posted almost 3 weeks >>>> ago (and this was already v2). >>> >>> What's that patch waiting on? >> >> x86 and release acks. > > I plan to release ack the patch in case the missing maintainer's acks > are not coming in too late.
I think Andy's objection was that there has been zero testing of livepatching on gcc. Maybe we can find someone to do a smoke-test. -George _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
