From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-b4-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-b4-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3949C34A765; Wed, 17 Dec 2025 13:03:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.147 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765976588; cv=none; b=ugQQAKPrutzHvRf7u7hQiP9i53FN+d6uxk0O9YiDr7lPtFiZN/eahXsqm/XGJj1AuIqVPVjGT/KhoEVVTFJlZzTyuvNYnuQKRDjUaXeRV0va3yeSw4YmbqKPEDG1ZrYb+DK7cQvTptLqYdPy6OVCuZlKD5q914unlarCD96jMr8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765976588; c=relaxed/simple; bh=KNOMpTz18c9hFEaslPIYk+SnMJnEqNf33j+qfUPXLYQ=; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Subject:From:To:Cc: References:In-Reply-To; b=jJEhClVULXvGk/44FZ/yl18+mV2Ka0QY/32+wjl+grBkimp6R1WtCAx6LqHAftnWbauvKonZNa7CDgCUhG808lD97nu/fLpxFKjK9CKVJjne/lVUnlRPQTXJHUxfeLNOMOUDJvglD0+/YMQ/GqAZhcJ1BhsuAJWYNXV0AejVFnQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=likewhatevs.io; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=likewhatevs.io; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=likewhatevs.io header.i=@likewhatevs.io header.b=YYYsYcN4; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=bheJ8eIJ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.147 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=likewhatevs.io Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=likewhatevs.io Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=likewhatevs.io header.i=@likewhatevs.io header.b="YYYsYcN4"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="bheJ8eIJ" Received: from phl-compute-06.internal (phl-compute-06.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailfout.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 187B41D0012E; Wed, 17 Dec 2025 08:03:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from phl-frontend-03 ([10.202.2.162]) by phl-compute-06.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 17 Dec 2025 08:03:05 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=likewhatevs.io; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type :date:date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1765976584; x=1766062984; bh=zDPnXRk/obdUY0LwllUsd/ief7O0CzZY dZxbE8dX5w4=; b=YYYsYcN4YC/LX8WsjJgtK0AceWIcGyScAlw44yqx9Aoc483X cc7AjAU06lBpyWKjywu1ZdtgJyYI5GG7/j24x9YPme4TwJ9bMjlkXAHzvKP0J4Wb /zMy8uUQppx6Q2AQMIutTMdeLsDZMdVG6rLIPQzzDeuy5Jst2t6Tn6QdczNtCAjy H7aeUPeyMS2G4mFSxPwWLW7XJvyXhTuMxdrqwNVhWASo6oJKZNRCRapgoXeY6a40 3e3tRrphoiX3zwta+WK+O/KVwHQYELwLXjtAe/A+njyPpx0lPjRJn/2eNWX6G7xy digzByZhlW2ttlvnoZXiLCxUP6pV+tMFa7ogsQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t=1765976584; x= 1766062984; bh=zDPnXRk/obdUY0LwllUsd/ief7O0CzZYdZxbE8dX5w4=; b=b heJ8eIJ0mlbpzGYc2Yvd6yUd8zNbG7cEV8SK8RX4D1vLuF+i6KC0SmgbveZvoWSn OHIn+xZ46DnKEfEQ17pJofwfka1OVKeq/kKMI7qCC/UkvQDCVQil/dzJdIKDNJ+9 TJ95ChRdRNZjzTJr7MZuf+4GWNGtEK9wFduMVmmlZL7Br5JEwO8/KCJsCVwR4SIb 8Bbb0E/lVkjQtg5RYG+rO9kSdKIFxo3wJwfUeX3LONkiuZPre9iUuCgGQvUV9v8C HUQ0s0KRraZeVTozP7nI5FY9KwCtYzOkrF5RV5FTFEb66aOz1juDIbdiFsxapnPS VrxJ6kpBi3QwraC6N5bmg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefgedrtddtgdegvdeifecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegr ihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjug hrpegggfgtfffkuffhvfevofhfjgesthhqredtredtjeenucfhrhhomhepfdfrrghtucfu ohhmrghruhdfuceophgrthhsoheslhhikhgvfihhrghtvghvshdrihhoqeenucggtffrrg htthgvrhhnpeeijeevgfeileetudefleejvddtkeegveffkeeugfdtgfeuieeivdeilefg teejteenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpe hprghtshhosehlihhkvgifhhgrthgvvhhsrdhiohdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepuddtpdhm ohguvgepshhmthhpohhuthdprhgtphhtthhopeguvhihuhhkohhvsehgohhoghhlvgdrtg homhdprhgtphhtthhopehnrghthhgrnheskhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohep nhhstgeskhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepphgrthhsoheslhhikhgvfihhrg htvghvshdrihhopdhrtghpthhtohepjhhushhtihhnshhtihhtthesghhoohhglhgvrdgt ohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepvgguugihiiekjeesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhope htohhrvhgrlhgusheslhhinhhugidqfhhouhhnuggrthhiohhnrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthht oheplhhinhhugidqkhgsuhhilhgusehvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpth htoheplhhinhhugidqkhgvrhhnvghlsehvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhg X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i7f194913:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 17 Dec 2025 08:03:04 -0500 (EST) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2025 08:03:03 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] kbuild changes for v6.19 From: "Pat Somaru" To: "Dmitry Vyukov" , "Nathan Chancellor" Cc: "Nicolas Schier" , , "Justin Stitt" , , "Linus Torvalds" , , , X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0 References: <20251217083202.GA2118121@ax162> <20251217104517.GA3546346@ax162> In-Reply-To: Hi All, >> itself to fix this. Again, unless Pat can come up with some way to work >> around this (which I do not personally see at this point), I think we >> would be better off just reverting 9362d34acf91 outright and calling the >> situation of including .c files within other .c files broken for >> compile_commands.json and returning to the status quo from 6.18 and >> earlier. I would say revert this. When I was testing this change, I wrote a script to non-interactively run clangd against all the files in the kernel individually and report if= =20 there were more errors or fewer and how many files clangd gave up on indexi= ng. I vaguely recall this script reported there were more errors overall, but a= lso that there were fewer files which clangd gave up on indexing (i.e. fewer files where LSP more/less outright does not work)/more files processed overall. My understanding of that output was "folks's ide's/clangd works on more fil= es with this, but there are more errors overall because fewer files are treated as totally broken/given up on by clangd". If there are only a handful of problematic files with this, I can see if there are some common patterns (such as c files including themselves) which= =20 could be accounted for in the script, but if the outputs of gen_compile_commands are used as inputs to further automation, both issues= =20 with the script itself and those in files previously excluded due to the=20 omission of compilation database entries are going to be surfaced by this, = and I'm not super confident I could come up with a complete set of fixes for th= e latter. Have a good day, Pat On Wed Dec 17, 2025 at 7:07 AM EST, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > On Wed, 17 Dec 2025 at 11:45, Nathan Chancellor wrote= : >> >> On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 11:16:37AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >> > Yikes! I am trying to workaround this, but this is PITA. >> > Entries are not in order, + there are now multiple entries for the >> > same source file (yes, files include themselves). This is plain >> > broken, and hard to workaround. Even if I find the entry that is >> > correct, I can't really tell about it to a clang tool since it accepts >> > just the source file name, and there are multiple entries for the same >> > file name. >> > >> > Does anybody see a reasonable way to undo what this commit is doing? >> >> Does >> >> $ git revert 9362d34acf91a706c543d919ade3e651b9bd2d6f >> >> not work for you? It is a clean revert for me. > > I am not typing commands in the console, I work on an automated system > that does not have a notion of "also do these custom changes to the > source tree at this particular point in the process". > >> > Thinking about this: I think included source files should be treated >> > as include files by anything, rather than added to the database. They >> > _are_ include files, and systems should handle include files already. >> >> The commit message of 9362d34acf91 mentions that clangd does not work >> properly with the files that are included in kernel/sched/build_policy.c >> (such as kernel/sched/ext.c) because there are no entries for them in >> compile_commmands.json (so it does not know how to build them), > > The same stands for e.g. include/linux/sched.h. > kernel/sched/ext.c is just not a source file, it is a header file effecti= vely. > >> which is >> what 9362d34acf91 was trying to fix. I don't use clangd or >> compile_commands.json, so I can't say if there is a way for the tool >> itself to fix this. Again, unless Pat can come up with some way to work >> around this (which I do not personally see at this point), I think we >> would be better off just reverting 9362d34acf91 outright and calling the >> situation of including .c files within other .c files broken for >> compile_commands.json and returning to the status quo from 6.18 and >> earlier. >> >> Cheers, >> Nathan