Re: linux-next: Tree for May 15 (several RV64 build errors)

[Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2332 bytes --]

On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 03:41:15PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 5/23/23 23:23, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wed, May 24, 2023, at 03:29, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> >> On Tue, 23 May 2023 17:22:20 PDT (-0700), rdunlap@infradead.org wrote:
> >>> On 5/23/23 06:07, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
> >>>> On 23/05/2023 04:28, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >>>>> On 5/19/23 03:42, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
> >>>>>>>> /opt/crosstool/gcc-12.2.0-nolibc/riscv64-linux/bin/riscv64-linux-ld: section .data LMA [000000000041a000,00000000075bffd7] overlaps section .text LMA [00000000000f09d4,00000000033562ab]
> >>>>>>>> /opt/crosstool/gcc-12.2.0-nolibc/riscv64-linux/bin/riscv64-linux-ld: section .init.pi.text LMA [00000000033562ac,0000000003359137] overlaps section .data LMA [000000000041a000,00000000075bffd7]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'll check this one too which seems to be related to kernel/pi introduction.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks to Bjorn: this is caused by XIP_KERNEL, which is known to have limited size, hence the overlap, so no fix for this one. Is there a way to exclude this config from randconfig?
> >>>>> Does this mean exclude XIP_KERNEL or something else from randconfigs?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I meant excluding XIP_KERNEL from randconfigs: it has very strict constraints regarding what can/can't be enabled then it needs human intervention to make sure the error above does not happen. So I would not bother testing this in randconfigs if possible.
> >>>
> >>> I can exclude it from my randconfig builds, but I don't know of a way to exclude it from randconfig builds in general (i.e., for everyone).
> >>
> >> Arnd had suggested a trick related to menus that would result in 
> >> randconfig never enabling some config.  It'd suggested for 
> >> CONFIG_NONPORTABLE, but we didn't use it because it'd reduce randconfig 
> >> coverage.
> >>
> >> Maybe we should add a CONFIG_VERYSPECIAL of some sort and hide things 
> >> like XIP behind it (maybe M-mode too)?
> > 
> > I usually add 'depends on !COMPILE_TEST', that excludes it from most
> > build bots.
> 
> XIP_KERNEL already has "depends on !COMPILE_TEST", since April of 2021.

Half of me wants to say just remove XIP_KERNEL entirely. Or make it
depend on BROKEN, since noone seems to actually test it and I don't
think we even know if it works right now?

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]