From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Young Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the printk tree Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 11:20:05 +0800 Message-ID: <20180305032005.GA4661@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> References: <20180302160732.12691fbc@canb.auug.org.au> <20180302155454.eme5gplxdcltvwkw@pathway.suse.cz> <20180303144739.GA516@tigerII.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180303144739.GA516@tigerII.localdomain> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Sergey Senozhatsky Cc: Petr Mladek , Tejun Heo , Stephen Rothwell , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Steven Rostedt , Sergey Senozhatsky , akpm@linux-foundation.org, Andi Kleen List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On 03/03/18 at 11:47pm, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > Cc-ing Tejun > > On (03/02/18 16:54), Petr Mladek wrote: > [..] > > > (Though it is not immediately obvious why.) > > > > It is a mistery to me. The error appears when I move any of > > dump_stack_print_info() or show_regs_print_info() function > > definitions from kernel/printk/printk.c to lib/dump_stack.c. > > All the other changes seems unrelated. > > > > The thing is that we basically do not touch dump_stack() definition > > by that patch. > > Apparently dump_stack_print_info() was in lib/dump_stack.c a long > time ago, but it was deliberately moved to printk.c, when kernel gained > a "generic" (dummy) dump_stack() fallback. Some archs, like blackfin, > define their own dump_stack() symbol and make it global via EXPORT_SYMBOL. > > In case of blackfin that arch-specific dump_stack() symbol invokes a > global dump_stack_print_info(). If we move dump_stack_print_info() back > to lib/dump_stack.c then we link both with arch/blackfin/dumpstack.o > and lib/dump_stack.o, which results in multiple definitions error. > If we move dump_stack_print_info() out on libdump_stack.o, then we > never link with lib/dump_stack.o > > ... so what are we going to do with that. > > a) we can drop the patch and cherry pick only the kexec part > > b) we can try to mark dummy lib/dump_stack() as __weak > EXPORT_SYMBOL and remove EXPORT_SYMBOL from arch-specific > definitions. > > So we will end up with EXPORT_SYMBOL dump_stack() and archs > may re-define it. If some arch will accidentally mark its > own dump_stack() as EXPORT_SYMBOL then there should be a > linkage warning - a symbol is exported twice. > > > Something like below. > > Opinions? Will this work? I would think b) is better, thanks for the fix! > > > ========= 8< ========= > > From: Sergey Senozhatsky > Subject: [PATCH] dump_stack: mark dummy dump_stack() as weak > > --- > arch/blackfin/kernel/dumpstack.c | 1 - > arch/nds32/kernel/traps.c | 2 -- > lib/dump_stack.c | 4 ++-- > 3 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/blackfin/kernel/dumpstack.c b/arch/blackfin/kernel/dumpstack.c > index 3c992c1f8ef2..61af017130cd 100644 > --- a/arch/blackfin/kernel/dumpstack.c > +++ b/arch/blackfin/kernel/dumpstack.c > @@ -174,4 +174,3 @@ void dump_stack(void) > show_stack(current, &stack); > trace_buffer_restore(tflags); > } > -EXPORT_SYMBOL(dump_stack); > diff --git a/arch/nds32/kernel/traps.c b/arch/nds32/kernel/traps.c > index 8828b4aeb72b..455bb0787367 100644 > --- a/arch/nds32/kernel/traps.c > +++ b/arch/nds32/kernel/traps.c > @@ -166,8 +166,6 @@ void dump_stack(void) > __dump(NULL, base_reg); > } > > -EXPORT_SYMBOL(dump_stack); > - > void show_stack(struct task_struct *tsk, unsigned long *sp) > { > unsigned long *base_reg; > diff --git a/lib/dump_stack.c b/lib/dump_stack.c > index 5cff72f18c4a..9cf4465dbffa 100644 > --- a/lib/dump_stack.c > +++ b/lib/dump_stack.c > @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ static void __dump_stack(void) > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP > static atomic_t dump_lock = ATOMIC_INIT(-1); > > -asmlinkage __visible void dump_stack(void) > +asmlinkage __weak __visible void dump_stack(void) > { > unsigned long flags; > int was_locked; > @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ asmlinkage __visible void dump_stack(void) > local_irq_restore(flags); > } > #else > -asmlinkage __visible void dump_stack(void) > +asmlinkage __weak __visible void dump_stack(void) > { > __dump_stack(); > } > -- > 2.16.2 > Thanks Dave