[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YedOLva0zos3A1JE@zn.tnic>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2022 00:33:02 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>,
x86@...nel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] objtool: prefer memory clobber & %= to volatile &
__COUNTER__
On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 03:01:20PM -0800, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> With the two WARN_ONs in media_request_object_complete(), GCC apparently
> considers the two reachable() asm statements as duplicates, and it
> removes the second one.
Could that be the same thing:
net/xfrm/xfrm_output.o: warning: objtool: xfrm_output_resume()+0x2e0: unreachable instruction
I see two WARN_ONs in asm output there too...
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists