From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48488C433EF for ; Wed, 18 May 2022 09:19:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4L36rP5CFJz3cFJ for ; Wed, 18 May 2022 19:19:33 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=Azyq8Pmr; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=none (no SPF record) smtp.mailfrom=linux.vnet.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.158.5; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=Azyq8Pmr; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4L36qY3NBZz3bqK for ; Wed, 18 May 2022 19:18:48 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098420.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 24I9DFS2029211; Wed, 18 May 2022 09:18:37 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=date : from : subject : to : cc : references : in-reply-to : message-id : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=pp1; bh=BicRAaUYGZ1Ic/3RHriFY2cM7MPUWW+Bf0scPmmQqyA=; b=Azyq8PmrqEKM8KMyaHU7f1tF4QuIvyEfe3qdCbOLvffY1zqxIN9Bec3muW2mCLLyt1/i 9qxV7Q43n+iVqTyBtMeDcFTTTvptGGpqPaV/r+3zkLQE8bcLawLUFxzJlvbltMhxWWdp eTScPSoD644QxmdfHAioiNYRFafw0+xeStYI2i8yDWbU32+mkBKQbHH3Z3woD+Wdjw6T +4iYMM00v98glmuw3MRAg/dVq/xh1+nRLT5eosyfKpUjxSSPQ7+hb2quL6vdmbkFKZ/Z 33Gamq1rSy6MUi8OODdogYDlydL2FtiIJ5RggnH/G6vF+6/SJzsXpOKnDWg6zCHFesC1 OA== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3g4wyhg43y-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 18 May 2022 09:18:37 +0000 Received: from m0098420.ppops.net (m0098420.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 24I9E6UY031199; Wed, 18 May 2022 09:18:36 GMT Received: from ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (63.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.99]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3g4wyhg43a-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 18 May 2022 09:18:36 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 24I9HdsA026675; Wed, 18 May 2022 09:18:34 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay09.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.194]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3g2429deyn-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 18 May 2022 09:18:34 +0000 Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.62]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 24I9IWNu39584156 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 18 May 2022 09:18:32 GMT Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 597C4AE053; Wed, 18 May 2022 09:18:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8EE4AE055; Wed, 18 May 2022 09:18:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost (unknown [9.43.19.36]) by d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 May 2022 09:18:31 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 14:48:30 +0530 From: "Naveen N. Rao" Subject: Re: [PATCH] kexec_file: Drop pr_err in weak implementations of arch_kexec_apply_relocations[_add] To: Baoquan He , Michael Ellerman References: <20220425174128.11455-1-naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1652782155.56t7mah8ib.naveen@linux.ibm.com> <8735h8b2f1.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org> <87v8u3o9tk.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: astroid/4d6b06ad (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1652864763.xpq371r1wx.naveen@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: tKYdTki0wc-WnUEYbWBU8LFCKteGZ1OT X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: D567mNwAXtog62W9xqk_romDsRtXvGeH Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Proofpoint-UnRewURL: 0 URL was un-rewritten MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.874,Hydra:6.0.486,FMLib:17.11.64.514 definitions=2022-05-18_03,2022-05-17_02,2022-02-23_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxlogscore=999 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=0 clxscore=1015 phishscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2202240000 definitions=main-2205180048 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, "Eric W. Biederman" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" Baoquan He wrote: > On 05/18/22 at 12:26pm, Michael Ellerman wrote: >>=20 >> It seems that recordmcount is not really maintained anymore now that x86 >> uses objtool? >>=20 >> There've been several threads about fixing recordmcount, but none of >> them seem to have lead to a solution. >>=20 >> These weak symbol vs recordmcount problems have been worked around going >> back as far as 2020: >=20 > It gives me feeling that llvm or recordmcount should make adjustment, > but not innocent kernel code, if there are a lot of places reported. > I am curious how llvm or recordmcount dev respond to this. As Michael stated, this is not just llvm - binutils has also adopted the=20 same and "unused" section symbols are being dropped. For recordmcount, there were a few threads and approaches that have been=20 tried: - https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/patch/cd0f6bdfdf1ee096f= b2c07e7b38940921b8e9118.1637764848.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu/ - https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=3D297434&s= tate=3D* Objtool has picked up a more appropriate fix for this recently, and=20 long-term, we would like to move to using objtool for ftrace purposes: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/t= ools/objtool/elf.c?id=3D4abff6d48dbcea8200c7ea35ba70c242d128ebf3 While that is being pursued, we want to unbreak some of the CI and users=20 who are hitting this. - Naveen