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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3840C433B4 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 21:28:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C796361175 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 21:28:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233147AbhDGV2q (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Apr 2021 17:28:46 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:55808 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232890AbhDGV2o (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Apr 2021 17:28:44 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-x135.google.com (mail-lf1-x135.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::135]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 304A5C061760 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 14:28:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x135.google.com with SMTP id b4so411447lfi.6 for ; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 14:28:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XWjUyKOaiYaHrSNGRAQMkzTl2/6YP/Jxn5feXfPwJPw=; b=tGiprS0/uJqpTbO30TJ0/ozd1LkH6KmtujjdAQUy46IQqWHCA+K9jJ49/vtQK9xk6u vGCaxYm3MoIn+oDobegiMeH5CB/hqskfLAp8nQ7C17k4KWv7LpeRAOC5oOf175SEecYC 77SzaNqu9ig81iYfZUrSiEY6vFIrTY3t7zrXpxcG8k8SwyWfyYAk3KTvV9rcmYXI6raW majb+BZW0GXU0zq1dtMd4gHpPKNtEWEyMmtNJGwXkbMPMhDzl6u2jioESWOJOobEsgXU JijAIUg2KBFyJvUKpb0rd9ZHBeZIkT4Efk4Q57bGyByyH+3pz6Glh2pyJzopeV0XqfPJ rDtA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XWjUyKOaiYaHrSNGRAQMkzTl2/6YP/Jxn5feXfPwJPw=; b=t0G9yGi2nP/nhabAo5zcjii9cG92oO9F1nWYh+Nrr6MATN/bh+Km/hgz8ZwtjfZDHt 3cyiLeHR8tV5K0iN+Nf6PRyAbK4vWRRQfbqEwDe3HC7d7QnKDsJSABmUw0kS2Z3oohUc XkeW231N+lQ/eFL197GLXFOkWt6MyKEpWqlGZb1h1D5tPL9t65dkzpTDwZ5NNHRg8H7l ks+i5YuQDeFsEPJifCPvc81pHfhGeQJ7YK76FaNYRrp1nKRAV9pNVyTvBZ7tZLGKhs3x kv9M0a2VVJY7jkN848HlE/FrbJdA5wEIX10kgQC5/MefdWfVFqSQUIItEjtcK4TeM+Uh 8Nqw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530DhyID2QgBWb/Ha1EI5J0SO7WAo8zAcsqyiTG70+Fzu7KZK3ag zJiajWuzUDPcSC8jj+mv8ywq+soYaPizKkiIeU7oDg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzCUyjDCWCmMBQXNZk2FyD0UTwuI5OnSxCg2fPf4EgssQww/AdlL/SgELOZfVFRjhKLhGGkjQnH92LgDVMQCoM= X-Received: by 2002:a19:430e:: with SMTP id q14mr3981418lfa.374.1617830912545; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 14:28:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210407185456.41943-1-ndesaulniers@google.com> <20210407185456.41943-2-ndesaulniers@google.com> <20210407142121.677e971e9e5dc85643441811@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20210407142121.677e971e9e5dc85643441811@linux-foundation.org> From: Nick Desaulniers Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 14:28:21 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gcov: re-fix clang-11+ support To: Andrew Morton Cc: Peter Oberparleiter , Nathan Chancellor , LKML , clang-built-linux , Fangrui Song , Prasad Sodagudi , "# 3.4.x" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 2:21 PM Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 11:54:55 -0700 Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > > LLVM changed the expected function signature for > > llvm_gcda_emit_function() in the clang-11 release. Users of clang-11 or > > newer may have noticed their kernels producing invalid coverage > > information: > > > > $ llvm-cov gcov -a -c -u -f -b .gcda -- gcno=.gcno > > 1 : checksum mismatch, \ > > (, ) != (, ) > > 2 Invalid .gcda File! > > ... > > > > Fix up the function signatures so calling this function interprets its > > parameters correctly and computes the correct cfg checksum. In > > particular, in clang-11, the additional checksum is no longer optional. > > Which tree is this against? I'm seeing quite a lot of rejects against > Linus's current. Today's linux-next; the only recent changes to this single source file since my last patches were: commit b3c4e66c908b ("gcov: combine common code") commit 17d0508a080d ("gcov: use kvmalloc()") both have your sign off, so I assume those are in your tree? -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers