[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <531309D9.6050708@linaro.org>
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 05:37:13 -0500
From: David Long <dave.long@...aro.org>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
CC: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, Rabin Vincent <rabin@....in>,
"Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" <tixy@...aro.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>,
davem@...emloft.net, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 07/14] ARM: Remove use of struct kprobe from generic
probes code
On 02/28/14 05:12, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 02:38:58AM -0500, David Long wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/probes.c b/arch/arm/kernel/probes.c
>> index 7cd1763..179deac 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/probes.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/probes.c
>> @@ -12,11 +12,9 @@
>> */
>>
>> #include <linux/kernel.h>
>> -#include <linux/kprobes.h>
>> #include <asm/system_info.h>
>
> How well has this code been tested? This file doesn't even build because
> (I suspect) the above change:
>
> arch/arm/kernel/probes.c: In function 'test_alu_write_pc_interworking':
> arch/arm/kernel/probes.c:68:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'BUG_ON' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> make[2]: *** [arch/arm/kernel/probes.o] Error 1
>
> This is because linux/kprobes.h includes linux/bug.h, which would provide
> the requirements for BUG_ON().
>
It was tested by building and running on Panda with all four
permutations of uprobes and kprobes enabled/disabled. x86 was also test
built and run to verify no regressions, and other testing was done
inside Linaro for arm64 endianess correctness. Very recently daily
build testing has been added and this config problem has shown up, and
our test configs adjusted accordingly. I think the problem was masked
on panda by CONFIG_PROFILING being set for that (and many other)
platform(s). On x86 it looks like the problem is avoided by
CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS always being set in arch/x86/Kconfig.
I was not aware of the use/requirement (or existence even) of randconfig
for validation testing, nor did I know a config dependency issue like
this one would be considered a showstopper problem.
-dl
--
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