MaskRay added a comment. In D72222#1836669 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D72222#1836669>, @hans wrote:
> In D72222#1836643 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D72222#1836643>, @peter.smith > wrote: > > > >> If the patchable functions is intended for clang-10 we'll need to make > > >> sure any fix is merged to clang-10. > > > > > > This commit was made before release/10.x branch. Maybe the easiest thing > > > is to revert the driver change in release/10.x (CC @hans), before we had > > > a better understanding of the problem. > > > (Eventually I think the Linux kernel should have a better configure time > > > test than a simple `whether the compiler accepts > > > -fpatchable-function-entry=2,0?`) > > > > > > @peter.smith @nickdesaulniers What do you think? > > > > Revert on the 10.0 release sounds reasonable to me. That would prevent the > > kernel from enabling the option and would prevent the build failure. > > > But if trunk is broken, shouldn't it be reverted there first, and then we can > merge the revert to 10.x (and then trunk can be fixed eventually)? I don't think the commit is to be blamed. The availability of the driver option -fpatchable-function-entry= enables `CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS` and `CONFIG_LIVEPATCH`, which were not tested before. There could be other issues in the code path. % rg fpatchable-function-entry arch/arm64/Kconfig 147: if $(cc-option,-fpatchable-function-entry=2) arch/arm64/Makefile 100: CC_FLAGS_FTRACE := -fpatchable-function-entry=2 If we can explicitly disable the options in the CI, that will be very nice. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D72222/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D72222 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
