Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the powerpc-objtool tree

[Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>]

Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> writes:
> Le 24/11/2022 à 02:29, Stephen Rothwell a écrit :
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
>> 
>>    tools/objtool/check.c
>> 
>> between commit:
>> 
>>    efb11fdb3e1a ("objtool: Fix SEGFAULT")
>> 
>> from the powerpc-objtool tree and commit:
>> 
>>    dbcdbdfdf137 ("objtool: Rework instruction -> symbol mapping")
>> 
>> from the tip tree.
>> 
>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
>> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
>> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
>> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
>> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
>> complex conflicts.
>> 
>
> Maybe it would be better to perform the check of insn inside the new 
> insn_func() then ?

I don't think it would.

Many of the other uses of insn_func() know that insn is not NULL,
because they've already checked it or have dereferenced some other
member of insn before the call. So in those cases checking it in
insn_func() would be redundant.

But ultimately up to the objtool maintainers.

cheers