Re: [PATCH 11/14] s390: Add support for suppressing warning backtraces
Guenter Roeck <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.ports.sh.devel,gmane.comp.video.dri.devel,gmane.linux.kernel.cross-arch,gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel,gmane.linux.documentation,gmane.linux.kernel,gmane.linux.ports.parisc,gmane.linux.ports.ppc64.devel,gmane.linux.ports.riscv |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 3/14/24 00:57, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Günter, > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 6:06 PM Guenter Roeck <[email protected]> wrote: >> Add name of functions triggering warning backtraces to the __bug_table >> object section to enable support for suppressing WARNING backtraces. >> >> To limit image size impact, the pointer to the function name is only added >> to the __bug_table section if both CONFIG_KUNIT and CONFIG_DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE >> are enabled. Otherwise, the __func__ assembly parameter is replaced with a >> (dummy) NULL parameter to avoid an image size increase due to unused >> __func__ entries (this is necessary because __func__ is not a define but a >> virtual variable). >> >> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <[email protected]> > > Thanks for your patch! > >> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/bug.h >> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/bug.h >> @@ -8,19 +8,30 @@ >> >> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE >> >> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KUNIT) >> +# define HAVE_BUG_FUNCTION >> +# define __BUG_FUNC_PTR " .long %0-.\n" >> +# define __BUG_FUNC __func__ >> +#else >> +# define __BUG_FUNC_PTR >> +# define __BUG_FUNC NULL >> +#endif /* IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KUNIT) */ >> + >> #define __EMIT_BUG(x) do { \ >> asm_inline volatile( \ >> "0: mc 0,0\n" \ >> ".section .rodata.str,\"aMS\",@progbits,1\n" \ >> "1: .asciz \""__FILE__"\"\n" \ >> ".previous\n" \ >> - ".section __bug_table,\"awM\",@progbits,%2\n" \ >> + ".section __bug_table,\"awM\",@progbits,%3\n" \ > > This change conflicts with commit 3938490e78f443fb ("s390/bug: > remove entry size from __bug_table section") in linus/master. > I guess it should just be dropped? > Yes, I know. I'll send v2 rebased to v6.9-rc1 once it is available and, yes, the change will be gone after that. Thanks, Guenter