[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Ztxgf6RGHwlonpus@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2024 10:17:35 -0400
From: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
Cc: live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Marcos Paulo de Souza <mpdesouza@...e.com>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/31] objtool, livepatch: Livepatch module generation
On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 06:47:06PM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> Normally I build objtool with
>
> make tools/objtool
>
> or just
>
> make
>
> Those use the objtool Makefile without all the extra kernel flags.
>
> How do you normally build objtool?
>
Usually as part of the kernel build, for example:
$ git clone \
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jpoimboe/linux.git \
--branch klp-build-rfc
$ cd linux && make -s defconfig && make -j$(nproc)
Results in the same implicit function declaration and uninitialized
variables errors. (Thanks to tools/objtool/Makefile's OBJTOOL_CFLAGS :=
-Werror I believe.)
Re-reading my report, I thought building the two object files (check.o
and klp-diff.o) individually would report their respective problems, but
I see now that the invocation seems to want to build all the .o's, so
disregard that build wrinkle. I almost always build objtool by a
top-level `make` or `make tools/objtool`, so sorry for any confusion.
--
Joe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists