From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 D1E9521170D for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2025 16:07:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1743437231; cv=none; b=bTFAmko1i9EyvbaTvYo1mY0/I+NvGBDF5jIoaPMy4nRYTS49R0jkWGlXVssqNEM9vpq7ysFFJDc29DGnFg2BG+IkkGf5A30x8lGjQunu7J/Y2Bs0Z8FOqZrgQb2EVza8H82rzaqDuw/mrPGcfkoFcfAY23GlVH9NJklAG+HJNjM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1743437231; c=relaxed/simple; bh=1IdX6lYLY25XiDpQmcnXRViGBkK4KP4zc6HhTX3eT4w=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=nDZY3GGXYouZGNPrj2GDHA8rOAN6VL0keutdEH3RujiG9CL7khoqvavBrp7WuIcy8Km7lWRGtq0oxIZVdpKOZjbW3W72uT+NRhRbU9yzfoVeW3xt/BLVL6y59dhQJFMHa03Csybb4Z2v5x81tfVPyDVpWldNZVoM2Y9hfmBcVgI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=W2loaDyT; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="W2loaDyT" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 204CEC4CEE3; Mon, 31 Mar 2025 16:07:07 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1743437229; bh=1IdX6lYLY25XiDpQmcnXRViGBkK4KP4zc6HhTX3eT4w=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=W2loaDyTnmW0rGqQH5R55d7duySP7bXyEgAAYjLFQB365Grhco/bZ2Op9FGzYgswd R6PLgSyzTmKnOrOqEJYAD2+PyRQtJ3m2QD3863GhZGDVnoJNnS0WYf1y5Fne4y33vv B137YFy/uF8GCeht89/Nm5ODU73KVMR9fy++HZUJqkkZ6DxjBiHjOo7U2lCISxby7Z BrPjGXQDQgnl8i0+E6JrjLiXa/8SuoT1VcDYhkX2dFjoO0KnvqjKtmEtgU++22E1Yq w1pqXQeLUkNSifdW8yw1Milg9UTlQC32k6yJk8stHmGqmMRSoA38hC7/6WYFukPFCG HkI85HlEBtvxA== Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:07:05 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Josh Poimboeuf Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] objtool fixes and updates Message-ID: References: <20250329153242.GAZ-gSmu8qiXufR04k@fat_crate.local> <20250330231355.GFZ-nQM6NPcC7nWl__@fat_crate.local> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: * Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 11:39:13AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > I'm wondering why LKP didn't pick up the primary warning, only the > > final warning that skips duplicate warnings, which is kinda totally > > useless in isolation: > > At least it alerted us to the other loongarch warnings we hadn't seen ;-) There's that :-) > > `-- arch-loongarch-kernel-traps.o:warning:objtool:show_stack:skipping-duplicate-warning(s) > > > > Maybe we should just do what is below - output a single warning, a bit > > like lockdep. > > Yeah, "skipping duplicate warnings" isn't technically a warning so it > probably shouldn't be presented as one. > > I'll just revert 0a7fb6f07e3a and go back to the simple "one warning > per function" which worked fine before. Thanks! Our experience with lockdep is that the fewer warnings per build/bootup, the better: the value of secondary warnings is diminishing, sometimes even negative. It might even be OK to generate just one objtool warning per .o file. Ingo