[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110314122539.GA27205@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 13:25:39 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Alan Modra <amodra@...il.com>
Cc: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
binutils@...rceware.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: PATCH: Add --size-check=[error|warning]
(resend, fixed the To line)
* Alan Modra <amodra@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 10:55:34AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > The thing is, it is absolutely, breath-takingy incompetent for
>
> kernel developers to write such poor asm! And not notice the error
> for 4 years! [...]
It is not 'poor asm'.
The 'bug' is just a slight assymetry in ENTRY()/END() debug-symbols sequences, with
lots of assembly code between the ENTRY() and the END(). Here's an example:
ENTRY(xen_do_hypervisor_callback) # do_hypervisor_callback(struct *pt_regs)
...
END(do_hypervisor_callback)
Human reviewers almost never catch such small mismatches, and binutils never even
warned about it either - for over a decade.
Now kernel bisections are insta-broken on latest binutils, and there's nothing to do
about it on the kernel side as during bisection all later fixes are unfolded. The
fix itself i already applied - but my argument was not about that:
> [...] Oh, and the binutils developers to write such a poor assembler in the first
> place. ;-)
>
> Seriously, you are complaining because something is fixed??
No, i reported this bug because the kernel build gets broken going back 130,000
commits, breaking bisection and causing other damage - while issuing a warning
message would achieve the same effect of warning the developer about the mismatch.
> > The correct solution is to turn it into a warning as me and others have suggested.
>
> I disagree. The whole world is not the linux kernel. I think HJ is
> bending over backwards to even offer a switch that turns the error
> into a warning.
It's not about a switch at all - it's to not break builds by default. I.e. the
default behavior should be to issue a warning and ignore the directive.
This is a very simple concept of compatibility: the build environment should always
be very permissive - stuff that build fine before should be allowed to build.
Also, i hope you are not suggesting to break projects just because they are not
important to you personally? The fix is exceedingly simple to do for the binutils
project - and impossible to do for the kernel project (because during bisection -
which is a very powerful debugging tool - older versions of the source get checked
out).
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists