[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <016a02d1019f4d0eba67e37d3be2d74d@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 08:49:14 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Nick Desaulniers' <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
CC: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@...cle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
"Andy Lutomirski" <luto@...nel.org>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] x86: work around clang IAS bug referencing __force_order
From: Nick Desaulniers
> Sent: 13 August 2020 01:13
>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 3:11 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> writes:
> > > When using the clang integrated assembler, we get a reference
> > > to __force_order that should normally get ignored in a few
> > > rare cases:
> > >
> > > ERROR: modpost: "__force_order" [drivers/cpufreq/powernow-k6.ko] undefined!
> > >
> > > Add a 'static' definition so any file in which this happens can
> > > have a local copy.
> >
> > That's a horrible hack.
>
> Agreed. And static means everyone gets their own copy, rather than
> sharing one memory address. I guess no one actually writes to it, so
> it doesn't really matter, but __force_order just seems so strange to
> me.
It could be changed to use a symbol that the linker script already defines.
However it does look like a workaround for a broken version of gcc.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists