On 07/26/2012 08:18 AM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 07/25/2012 10:04 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Please do not add anything to linux-next included branches/series that is
>> destined for v3.7 until after v3.6-rc1 is released.
>>
>> Reminder: do not rebase your branches before asking Linus to pull them ...
>>
>> Changes since 20120725:
>>
>
>
>
> uml on x86_64 (defconfig) build fails with:
>
> CC arch/x86/um/../kernel/module.o
> arch/x86/um/../kernel/module.c:96:5: error: redefinition of 'apply_relocate_add'
> include/linux/moduleloader.h:64:19: note: previous definition of 'apply_relocate_add' was here
> make[2]: *** [arch/x86/um/../kernel/module.o] Error 1
>
>
>
Adding Rusty.
This build error is still happening for uml on x86_64
in linux-next 20120813.
--
~Randy
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 10:00:16 -0700, Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 07/26/2012 08:18 AM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
> > On 07/25/2012 10:04 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Please do not add anything to linux-next included branches/series that is
> >> destined for v3.7 until after v3.6-rc1 is released.
> >>
> >> Reminder: do not rebase your branches before asking Linus to pull them ...
> >>
> >> Changes since 20120725:
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > uml on x86_64 (defconfig) build fails with:
> >
> > CC arch/x86/um/../kernel/module.o
> > arch/x86/um/../kernel/module.c:96:5: error: redefinition of 'apply_relocate_add'
> > include/linux/moduleloader.h:64:19: note: previous definition of 'apply_relocate_add' was here
> > make[2]: *** [arch/x86/um/../kernel/module.o] Error 1
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Adding Rusty.
>
>
> This build error is still happening for uml on x86_64
> in linux-next 20120813.
No huge surprise, I'll punt this to David Howells :)
Cheers,
Rusty.
Rusty Russell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > CC arch/x86/um/../kernel/module.o
> > > arch/x86/um/../kernel/module.c:96:5: error: redefinition of 'apply_relocate_add'
> > > include/linux/moduleloader.h:64:19: note: previous definition of 'apply_relocate_add' was here
> > > make[2]: *** [arch/x86/um/../kernel/module.o] Error 1
Hmmm... I'm not sure how to deal with this. The problem is that UML doesn't
draw the:
select MODULES_USE_ELF_REL if X86_32
select MODULES_USE_ELF_RELA if X86_64
definitions from arch/foo/Kconfig that tell it what modules will look like.
Should I just enable both REL and RELA in UML, or is there a better way to do
this?
David
Am 14.08.2012 16:26, schrieb David Howells:
> Rusty Russell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>> CC arch/x86/um/../kernel/module.o
>>>> arch/x86/um/../kernel/module.c:96:5: error: redefinition of 'apply_relocate_add'
>>>> include/linux/moduleloader.h:64:19: note: previous definition of 'apply_relocate_add' was here
>>>> make[2]: *** [arch/x86/um/../kernel/module.o] Error 1
>
> Hmmm... I'm not sure how to deal with this. The problem is that UML doesn't
> draw the:
>
> select MODULES_USE_ELF_REL if X86_32
> select MODULES_USE_ELF_RELA if X86_64
>
> definitions from arch/foo/Kconfig that tell it what modules will look like.
>
> Should I just enable both REL and RELA in UML, or is there a better way to do
> this?
Is there no way to get this information from the UML subarch?
Which is currently X86_32 or X86_64.
Thanks,
//richard
Richard Weinberger <[email protected]> wrote:
> Is there no way to get this information from the UML subarch?
> Which is currently X86_32 or X86_64.
Or ppc or ia64? Or are those defunct?
I can certainly try pasting the lines from x86/Kconfig to uml/Kconfig.common
to switch the REL/RELA bits, but it would be nice to get this from the actual
arch if possible to reduce redundancy.
David
Am 14.08.2012 16:51, schrieb David Howells:
> Richard Weinberger <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Is there no way to get this information from the UML subarch?
>> Which is currently X86_32 or X86_64.
>
> Or ppc or ia64? Or are those defunct?
Those are defunct.
AFAIK viro is working on UML/ppc64.
> I can certainly try pasting the lines from x86/Kconfig to uml/Kconfig.common
> to switch the REL/RELA bits, but it would be nice to get this from the actual
> arch if possible to reduce redundancy.
The issue happens only on -next, right?
I can have a closer look at the issue tomorrow.
Thanks,
//richard
David Howells <[email protected]> wrote:
> I can certainly try pasting the lines from x86/Kconfig to uml/Kconfig.common
> to switch the REL/RELA bits, but it would be nice to get this from the actual
> arch if possible to reduce redundancy.
The attached patch works.
David
---
diff --git a/arch/um/Kconfig.common b/arch/um/Kconfig.common
index cb837c2..0463e48 100644
--- a/arch/um/Kconfig.common
+++ b/arch/um/Kconfig.common
@@ -11,6 +11,8 @@ config UML
select GENERIC_CPU_DEVICES
select GENERIC_IO
select GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS
+ select MODULES_USE_ELF_REL if X86_32
+ select MODULES_USE_ELF_RELA if X86_64
config MMU
bool
Am 14.08.2012 16:54, schrieb David Howells:
> David Howells <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I can certainly try pasting the lines from x86/Kconfig to uml/Kconfig.common
>> to switch the REL/RELA bits, but it would be nice to get this from the actual
>> arch if possible to reduce redundancy.
>
> The attached patch works.
>
> David
> ---
> diff --git a/arch/um/Kconfig.common b/arch/um/Kconfig.common
> index cb837c2..0463e48 100644
> --- a/arch/um/Kconfig.common
> +++ b/arch/um/Kconfig.common
> @@ -11,6 +11,8 @@ config UML
> select GENERIC_CPU_DEVICES
> select GENERIC_IO
> select GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS
> + select MODULES_USE_ELF_REL if X86_32
> + select MODULES_USE_ELF_RELA if X86_64
I think arch/x86/um/Kconfig makes more sense.
Thanks,
//richard
Richard Weinberger <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think arch/x86/um/Kconfig makes more sense.
warthog>ls arch/um
defconfig Kconfig.common Kconfig.um Makefile-os-Linux scripts/
drivers/ Kconfig.debug kernel/ Makefile-ppc sys-ia64/
include/ Kconfig.net Makefile Makefile-skas sys-ppc/
Kconfig.char Kconfig.rest Makefile-ia64 os-Linux/
It doesn't exist. Should I create it?
David
Am 14.08.2012 17:06, schrieb David Howells:
> Richard Weinberger <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I think arch/x86/um/Kconfig makes more sense.
>
> warthog>ls arch/um
> defconfig Kconfig.common Kconfig.um Makefile-os-Linux scripts/
> drivers/ Kconfig.debug kernel/ Makefile-ppc sys-ia64/
> include/ Kconfig.net Makefile Makefile-skas sys-ppc/
> Kconfig.char Kconfig.rest Makefile-ia64 os-Linux/
>
> It doesn't exist. Should I create it?
arch/x86/um, not arch/um.
arch/um/ contains the generic UML stuff.
arch/x86/um/ the x86 specific UML stuff.
Thanks,
//richard
David Howells <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I think arch/x86/um/Kconfig makes more sense.
> ...
> It doesn't exist. Should I create it?
Bah. Helps if I read your message more closely.
David
How about this then?
David
---
diff --git a/arch/x86/um/Kconfig b/arch/x86/um/Kconfig
index 9926e11..a4b0c10 100644
--- a/arch/x86/um/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/x86/um/Kconfig
@@ -21,9 +21,11 @@ config 64BIT
config X86_32
def_bool !64BIT
select HAVE_AOUT
+ select MODULES_USE_ELF_REL
config X86_64
def_bool 64BIT
+ select MODULES_USE_ELF_RELA
config RWSEM_XCHGADD_ALGORITHM
def_bool X86_XADD && 64BIT
Am 14.08.2012 17:15, schrieb David Howells:
> How about this then?
>
> David
> ---
> diff --git a/arch/x86/um/Kconfig b/arch/x86/um/Kconfig
> index 9926e11..a4b0c10 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/um/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/x86/um/Kconfig
> @@ -21,9 +21,11 @@ config 64BIT
> config X86_32
> def_bool !64BIT
> select HAVE_AOUT
> + select MODULES_USE_ELF_REL
>
> config X86_64
> def_bool 64BIT
> + select MODULES_USE_ELF_RELA
>
> config RWSEM_XCHGADD_ALGORITHM
> def_bool X86_XADD && 64BIT
Looks sane.
Acked-by: Richard Weinberger <[email protected]>
Thanks,
//richard
On 08/14/2012 08:17 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am 14.08.2012 17:15, schrieb David Howells:
>> How about this then?
>>
>> David
>> ---
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/um/Kconfig b/arch/x86/um/Kconfig
>> index 9926e11..a4b0c10 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/um/Kconfig
>> +++ b/arch/x86/um/Kconfig
>> @@ -21,9 +21,11 @@ config 64BIT
>> config X86_32
>> def_bool !64BIT
>> select HAVE_AOUT
>> + select MODULES_USE_ELF_REL
>>
>> config X86_64
>> def_bool 64BIT
>> + select MODULES_USE_ELF_RELA
>>
>> config RWSEM_XCHGADD_ALGORITHM
>> def_bool X86_XADD && 64BIT
>
> Looks sane.
>
> Acked-by: Richard Weinberger <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
Thanks.
--
~Randy
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:41:42 -0700, Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 08/14/2012 08:17 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>
> > Am 14.08.2012 17:15, schrieb David Howells:
> >> How about this then?
> >>
> >> David
> >> ---
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/um/Kconfig b/arch/x86/um/Kconfig
> >> index 9926e11..a4b0c10 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/um/Kconfig
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/um/Kconfig
> >> @@ -21,9 +21,11 @@ config 64BIT
> >> config X86_32
> >> def_bool !64BIT
> >> select HAVE_AOUT
> >> + select MODULES_USE_ELF_REL
> >>
> >> config X86_64
> >> def_bool 64BIT
> >> + select MODULES_USE_ELF_RELA
> >>
> >> config RWSEM_XCHGADD_ALGORITHM
> >> def_bool X86_XADD && 64BIT
> >
> > Looks sane.
> >
> > Acked-by: Richard Weinberger <[email protected]>
>
>
> Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
Thanks, folded into David's original patch.
Cheers,
Rusty.
On 08/19/2012 07:51 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:41:42 -0700, Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 08/14/2012 08:17 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>
>>> Am 14.08.2012 17:15, schrieb David Howells:
>>>> How about this then?
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>> ---
>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/um/Kconfig b/arch/x86/um/Kconfig
>>>> index 9926e11..a4b0c10 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/x86/um/Kconfig
>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/um/Kconfig
>>>> @@ -21,9 +21,11 @@ config 64BIT
>>>> config X86_32
>>>> def_bool !64BIT
>>>> select HAVE_AOUT
>>>> + select MODULES_USE_ELF_REL
>>>>
>>>> config X86_64
>>>> def_bool 64BIT
>>>> + select MODULES_USE_ELF_RELA
>>>>
>>>> config RWSEM_XCHGADD_ALGORITHM
>>>> def_bool X86_XADD && 64BIT
>>>
>>> Looks sane.
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Richard Weinberger <[email protected]>
>>
>>
>> Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
>
> Thanks, folded into David's original patch.
When will this be fixed in linux-next?
linux-next of 20120821 still fails.
thanks,
--
~Randy
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:43:59 -0700, Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 08/19/2012 07:51 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:41:42 -0700, Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On 08/14/2012 08:17 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> >>
> >>> Am 14.08.2012 17:15, schrieb David Howells:
> >>>> How about this then?
> >>>>
> >>>> David
> >>>> ---
> >>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/um/Kconfig b/arch/x86/um/Kconfig
> >>>> index 9926e11..a4b0c10 100644
> >>>> --- a/arch/x86/um/Kconfig
> >>>> +++ b/arch/x86/um/Kconfig
> >>>> @@ -21,9 +21,11 @@ config 64BIT
> >>>> config X86_32
> >>>> def_bool !64BIT
> >>>> select HAVE_AOUT
> >>>> + select MODULES_USE_ELF_REL
> >>>>
> >>>> config X86_64
> >>>> def_bool 64BIT
> >>>> + select MODULES_USE_ELF_RELA
> >>>>
> >>>> config RWSEM_XCHGADD_ALGORITHM
> >>>> def_bool X86_XADD && 64BIT
> >>>
> >>> Looks sane.
> >>>
> >>> Acked-by: Richard Weinberger <[email protected]>
> >>
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
> >
> > Thanks, folded into David's original patch.
>
>
> When will this be fixed in linux-next?
>
> linux-next of 20120821 still fails.
Should be in latest, ie. 20120822.
Cheers,
Rusty.