Re: [PATCH] ARM: don't export unused return_address()

[Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@armlinux.org.uk>]

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 06:02:13PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Hi Arnd,
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 2:01 AM Russell King - ARM Linux admin
> <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 02:15:00PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > Hi Russell,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:45 PM Russell King - ARM Linux admin
> > > <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 08:40:39PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 11:31 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:47 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > > > > > > Without the frame pointer enabled, return_address() is an inline
> > > > > > > function and does not need to be exported, as shown by this warning:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > WARNING: "return_address" [vmlinux] is a static EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Move the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() into the #ifdef as well.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for your patch!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c
> > > > > > > @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ void *return_address(unsigned int level)
> > > > > > >                 return NULL;
> > > > > > >  }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Checkpatch doesn't like the empty line above:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WARNING: EXPORT_SYMBOL(foo); should immediately follow its function/variable
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(return_address);
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > >  #endif /* if defined(CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER) && !defined(CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND) */
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(return_address);
> > >
> > > > > What has happened to this patch?
> > > > >
> > > > > I still see this warning.
> > > >
> > > > Simple - it got merged, it caused build regressions, it got dropped.
> > > > A new version is pending me doing another round of patch merging.
> > >
> > > I believe that was not Arnd's patch, but Ben Dooks' alternative solution[*]?
> >
> > I don't keep track of who did what, sorry.
> 
> 
> Arnd,
> 
> I believe this patch is the correct fix.
> Could you please put it into Russell's patch tracker?
> (patches@arm.linux.org.uk)

Is there something wrong with:

fb033c95c94c ARM: 8918/2: only build return_address() if needed

I haven't seen any build issues with that.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel