Re: Possible regression in next-20150323 due to "ARM, arm64: kvm: get rid of the bounce page"

[Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>]

On 04/01/2015 03:58 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
> 
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 07:58:21PM +0100, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> writes:
>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:25:54AM +0000, Simon Horman wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 08:29:21AM -0700, Tyler Baker wrote:
>>>>> On 26 March 2015 at 06:36, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:39:39AM +0000, Simon Horman wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:13:58AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>>>>>>> I think we now have a new error: (seen with omap2plus_defconfig)
>>>>>>>> on next-20150324 :
>>>>>>>> ./arch/arm/kernel/vmlinux.lds:677: undefined symbol `__hyp_idmap_size'
>>>>>>>> referenced in expression
>>>>>>>> make: *** [vmlinux] Error 1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks, I am seeing that too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My armchair suggestion is that the following should be reverted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> e60a1fec44a2f ("ARM: kvm: implement replacement for ld's LOG2CEIL()")
>>>>>>> 06f75a1f62000 ("ARM, arm64: kvm: get rid of the bounce page")
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you try again with the latest -next please? We've merged an additional
>>>>>> patch aimed at sorting this out. Reverting isn't really an option, as
>>>>>> there's an awful lot of code that depends on the bounce page removal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here are the kernelci.org -next results[1], if you click the build
>>>>> status you can dig down into the build failures. next-20150326 has now
>>>>> hit a compiler bug, Arnd mentioned he was looking into this issue.
>>>>
>>>> I have confirmed that next-20150326 does not compile without
>>>> the following reverted:
>>>>
>>>> 12eb3e833961 ("ARM: kvm: assert on HYP section boundaries not actual code size")
>>>> e60a1fec44a2 ("ARM: kvm: implement replacement for ld's LOG2CEIL()")
>>>> 06f75a1f6200 ("ARM, arm64: kvm: get rid of the bounce page")
>>>
>>> Thanks for testing this and sorry for the continued breakage. Which
>>> toolchain did you say you were using? Ard has some more patches trying to
>>> fix this, but none of our toolchains seem to tickle the issue.
>>
>> I've also tested on the default ARM toolchains available with ubuntu[1]
>>
>> Are there any updates on this issue?
> 
> It's been fixed since the end of last week!
> 

I can confirm that my tests have started functioning again (gcc 4.6)
https://github.com/nmenon/kernel-test-logs/tree/linux-next

-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon