Re: [PATCH] um: Allow multiple symbol definitions for GCOV builds

On Wed, 2026-07-22 at 10:09 -0600, Alex Hung wrote:
>=20
> On 7/22/26 08:02, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > Hi,
> >=20
> > On Tue, 2026-07-21 at 16:23 -0600, Alex Hung wrote:
> > > >=20
> > > > I cannot see how that would possibly result in correct behaviour (b=
eyond
> > > > being able to link)??
> >=20
> > > Good point. --allow-multiple-definition silences the linker error, bu=
t
> > > picking kernel or libgcov's mangle_path() will break the other at run=
time.
> > >=20
> > > I saw your previous patch
> > > (https://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/2103.1/06604.html) to ren=
ame
> > > mangle_path() to seq_mangle_path(). How about reviving it to avoid na=
me
> > > conflicts instead?
> >=20
> > Honestly, I completely forgot about that. Looks like I ran into the
> > typical "nobody wants to merge it" problem ...
> >=20
> > johannes
>=20
> Is there any concerns or blockers to merge them?

I don't _think_ so, I guess it ended up mostly procedural, since it was
across different maintainers etc., and I lost interest because we
stopped trying to use gcov.

> I sure want to revive them.

Sure, sounds reasonable, feel free, of course!

> The series may also have a solution for the other patch I sent=20
> (https://lore.kernel.org/linux-um/eea36454-cbbe-4690-980d-b4ec9423f3a0@am=
d.com/T/#u).

That one we should just apply for ARCH=3Dum, seems reasonable to me.

> I will test the series and report here later.
>=20

Thanks. Please just resend whatever you think should be included, maybe
first all the UML stuff separately.

johannes