Re: [PATCH] blackfin: Makefile: Skip reloc overflow issue when COMPILE_TEST enabled

[Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>]

Am 08.04.2015 um 23:16 schrieb Chen Gang:
> On 4/9/15 05:10, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> Am 08.04.2015 um 23:05 schrieb Chen Gang:
>>> l1_text is at L1_CODE_START (e.g. for bf533, 0xff800000). If the kernel
>>> is too big, it may be overwritten, the related issue:
>>>
>>>     LD      init/built-in.o
>>>   init/built-in.o: In function `do_early_param':
>>>   init/main.c:(.init.text+0xe0): relocation truncated to fit: R_BFIN_PCREL24 against symbol `strcmp' defined in .l1.text section in arch/blackfin/lib/lib.a(strcmp.o)
>>>   init/main.c:(.init.text+0x10e): relocation truncated to fit: R_BFIN_PCREL24 against symbol `strcmp' defined in .l1.text section in arch/blackfin/lib/lib.a(strcmp.o)
>>>   init/built-in.o: In function `unknown_bootoption':
>>>
>>> blackfin is for embedded system, the size limitition is acceptable, so
>>> it is not the real world issue, which should be skipped if COMPILE_TEST
>>> enabled.
>>
>> You're again papering over the real issue.
>> COMPILE_TEST is only one way to generate a too big kernel.
>> The right thing is to blow up and warn the user.
>>
> 
> If COMPILE_TEST is not set, the right thing is to blow up and warn the
> user.
> 
> But for me, if COMPILE_TEST is set, the right thing is to warn the user
> without blowing up (the user already know about it -- he/she only care
> about the building test).

How can you be sure that the issue you found is a) worth ignoring b) not solvable?
As you paper of it by adding an #ifdef COMPILE_TEST which is very hacky IMHO.

Thanks,
//richard