[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aBc4iLZoH1cFzM96@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 4 May 2025 11:51:04 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de>
Cc: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
oe-kbuild-all@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [tip:timers/urgent 3/3] llvm-readelf: warning:
'arch/riscv/kernel/vdso/hwprobe.o': bitcode files are not supported
* Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de> wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
>
> On Sun, May 04, 2025 at 01:26:54PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git timers/urgent
> > head: 7aeb1538be5df3efa1d799e5428ac3a0ae802293
> > commit: 7aeb1538be5df3efa1d799e5428ac3a0ae802293 [3/3] vdso: Reject absolute relocations during build
> > :::::: branch date: 4 hours ago
> > :::::: commit date: 4 hours ago
> > config: riscv-randconfig-001-20250503 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250503/202505030636.3ExDB8O2-lkp@intel.com/config)
> > compiler: clang version 20.1.2 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project 58df0ef89dd64126512e4ee27b4ac3fd8ddf6247)
> > reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250503/202505030636.3ExDB8O2-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)
> >
> > If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
> > the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
> > | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> > | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/202505030636.3ExDB8O2-lkp@intel.com/
> >
> > All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
> >
> > >> llvm-readelf: warning: 'arch/riscv/kernel/vdso/hwprobe.o': bitcode files are not supported
> > --
> > >> llvm-readelf: warning: 'arch/riscv/kernel/vdso/hwprobe.o': bitcode files are not supported
>
> Could you drop "vdso: Reject absolute relocations during build" from the "urgent"
> branch for now? It is not necessary for the actual bugfix.
Done.
> I have an idea on how to fix the issue found by 0day but those
> patches can then go through the normal process.
Thanks!
I'd still prefer to delay the other timers/urgent fixes to be on the
safe side and send them in a day or two, but it's up to Thomas.
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists