From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] arm64: fix missing 'const' qualifiers
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:47:44 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171129114744.GB10650@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171129093225.tq2cbg6l6yupkeit@yury-thinkpad>
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:32:25PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 06:33:55PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 12:41:27PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> > > It was discovered during LTO-enabled compilation with gcc/ld.bfd.
> >
> > What was discovered? Could you provide a bit more information in the
> > changelog, please? I'm happy to take this as a fix if it's actually fixing
> > something.
>
> Yes it does. There's inconsistency in variable declaration and
> section type. GCC doesn't throw error for usual build, but if LTO
> enabled, build becomes broken, like this:
>
> mm/percpu.c:2168:20: error: pcpu_fc_names causes a section type conflict
> with dt_supported_cpu_ops
> const char * const pcpu_fc_names[PCPU_FC_NR] __initconst = {
> ^
> arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_ops.c:34:37: note: ?dt_supported_cpu_ops? was declared here
> static const struct cpu_operations *dt_supported_cpu_ops[] __initconst = {
>
> And so on. Let me know if you need full error log, then I'll resend the
> patch with it.
I think it would be helpful to include one of the errors in the commit
message.
Please send a v2 with that.
Will
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Yury Norov <ynorov@caviumnetworks.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alex Matveev <alxmtvv@gmail.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim.kuvyrkov@linaro.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: fix missing 'const' qualifiers
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:47:44 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171129114744.GB10650@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171129093225.tq2cbg6l6yupkeit@yury-thinkpad>
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:32:25PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 06:33:55PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 12:41:27PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> > > It was discovered during LTO-enabled compilation with gcc/ld.bfd.
> >
> > What was discovered? Could you provide a bit more information in the
> > changelog, please? I'm happy to take this as a fix if it's actually fixing
> > something.
>
> Yes it does. There's inconsistency in variable declaration and
> section type. GCC doesn't throw error for usual build, but if LTO
> enabled, build becomes broken, like this:
>
> mm/percpu.c:2168:20: error: pcpu_fc_names causes a section type conflict
> with dt_supported_cpu_ops
> const char * const pcpu_fc_names[PCPU_FC_NR] __initconst = {
> ^
> arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_ops.c:34:37: note: ‘dt_supported_cpu_ops’ was declared here
> static const struct cpu_operations *dt_supported_cpu_ops[] __initconst = {
>
> And so on. Let me know if you need full error log, then I'll resend the
> patch with it.
I think it would be helpful to include one of the errors in the commit
message.
Please send a v2 with that.
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-11-29 11:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-25 9:41 [PATCH] arm64: fix missing 'const' qualifiers Yury Norov
2017-11-25 9:41 ` Yury Norov
2017-11-27 17:15 ` Nick Desaulniers
2017-11-27 17:15 ` Nick Desaulniers
2017-11-27 17:59 ` Yury Norov
2017-11-27 17:59 ` Yury Norov
2017-11-28 18:33 ` Will Deacon
2017-11-28 18:33 ` Will Deacon
2017-11-29 9:32 ` Yury Norov
2017-11-29 9:32 ` Yury Norov
2017-11-29 11:47 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2017-11-29 11:47 ` Will Deacon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20171129114744.GB10650@arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.