| Message ID | 20230528060227.AF10.409509F4@e16-tech.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | please fold some fix into misc-next(btrfs: print assertion failure report and stack trace from the same line) | expand |
On Sun, May 28, 2023 at 06:02:28AM +0800, Wang Yugui wrote: > Hi, > > please fold some fix into misc-next(btrfs: print assertion failure report and stack trace from the same line). > > Because 'btrfs_assertfail' become macro(inline), we should drop it from objtools. > > diff --git a/tools/objtool/check.c b/tools/objtool/check.c > index f937be1afe65..060032cfb046 100644 > --- a/tools/objtool/check.c > +++ b/tools/objtool/check.c > @@ -170,7 +170,6 @@ static bool __dead_end_function(struct objtool_file *file, struct symbol *func, > "__reiserfs_panic", > "__stack_chk_fail", > "__ubsan_handle_builtin_unreachable", > - "btrfs_assertfail", If this is not in objtool, does it produce any warning? I'm not sure if I want to do the change in the same patch and last time I checked objtool was fine with the listed function not existing. > "cpu_bringup_and_idle", > "cpu_startup_entry", > "do_exit", > > Best Regards > Wang Yugui (wangyugui@e16-tech.com) > 2023/05/28 >
Hi, > On Sun, May 28, 2023 at 06:02:28AM +0800, Wang Yugui wrote: > > Hi, > > > > please fold some fix into misc-next(btrfs: print assertion failure report and stack trace from the same line). > > > > Because 'btrfs_assertfail' become macro(inline), we should drop it from objtools. > > > > diff --git a/tools/objtool/check.c b/tools/objtool/check.c > > index f937be1afe65..060032cfb046 100644 > > --- a/tools/objtool/check.c > > +++ b/tools/objtool/check.c > > @@ -170,7 +170,6 @@ static bool __dead_end_function(struct objtool_file *file, struct symbol *func, > > "__reiserfs_panic", > > "__stack_chk_fail", > > "__ubsan_handle_builtin_unreachable", > > - "btrfs_assertfail", > > If this is not in objtool, does it produce any warning? I'm not sure if > I want to do the change in the same patch and last time I checked > objtool was fine with the listed function not existing. yes, it produce no warning, but this funciton in here become a noisy. we need to do this in the same patch, because in this patch, it become from necessary to noisy. Best Regards Wang Yugui (wangyugui@e16-tech.com) 2023/05/29
On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 10:15:32PM +0800, Wang Yugui wrote: > Hi, > > > On Sun, May 28, 2023 at 06:02:28AM +0800, Wang Yugui wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > please fold some fix into misc-next(btrfs: print assertion failure report and stack trace from the same line). > > > > > > Because 'btrfs_assertfail' become macro(inline), we should drop it from objtools. > > > > > > diff --git a/tools/objtool/check.c b/tools/objtool/check.c > > > index f937be1afe65..060032cfb046 100644 > > > --- a/tools/objtool/check.c > > > +++ b/tools/objtool/check.c > > > @@ -170,7 +170,6 @@ static bool __dead_end_function(struct objtool_file *file, struct symbol *func, > > > "__reiserfs_panic", > > > "__stack_chk_fail", > > > "__ubsan_handle_builtin_unreachable", > > > - "btrfs_assertfail", > > > > If this is not in objtool, does it produce any warning? I'm not sure if > > I want to do the change in the same patch and last time I checked > > objtool was fine with the listed function not existing. > > yes, it produce no warning, but this funciton in here become a noisy. > > we need to do this in the same patch, because in this patch, > it become from necessary to noisy. Ok, I'll update the patch and let Josh know.
diff --git a/tools/objtool/check.c b/tools/objtool/check.c index f937be1afe65..060032cfb046 100644 --- a/tools/objtool/check.c +++ b/tools/objtool/check.c @@ -170,7 +170,6 @@ static bool __dead_end_function(struct objtool_file *file, struct symbol *func, "__reiserfs_panic", "__stack_chk_fail", "__ubsan_handle_builtin_unreachable", - "btrfs_assertfail", "cpu_bringup_and_idle", "cpu_startup_entry", "do_exit",