Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752695AbeABMfK (ORCPT + 1 other); Tue, 2 Jan 2018 07:35:10 -0500 Received: from mail-pl0-f66.google.com ([209.85.160.66]:38780 "EHLO mail-pl0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751657AbeABMfJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jan 2018 07:35:09 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBouJ/NDiyu/EiEPbnVwFAYSMxdx5PQ3r2V3P1SbQXLLPizO6Eg5v8tUx8lR3nj5NE9L2Ks94HA== Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 12:34:59 +0000 From: Sudip Mukherjee To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Jose Abreu , Vineet Gupta , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch: drop duplicate exports of abort() Message-ID: <20180102123459.GA6354@sudip-tp> References: <20180102103311.706364-1-arnd@arndb.de> <20180102113417.GA5078@sudip-tp> <20180102113829.GD28752@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180102113829.GD28752@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 11:38:29AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 11:34:45AM +0000, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > Hi Arnd, > > > > On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 11:31:12AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > We now have exports in both architecture code in in common code, > > > which causes a link failure when symbol versioning is eanbled, on > > > four architectures: > > > > > > kernel/exit.o: In function `__crc_abort': > > > exit.c:(*ABS*+0xc0e2ec8b): multiple definition of `__crc_abort' > > > > > > This removes the four architecture specific exports and only > > > leaves the export next to the __weak symbol. > > > > Will it not be better to remove the abort() as they are exactly same > > like the weak function. That was the original plan we had when this > > weak function was done. Like in the attached patch.. > > If that was the plan, why wasn't it done - why did we end up with a > build-breaking patch merged in -mm? The proposed patch (which I attached in the earlier mail) was breaking the build unless weak abort() is exported. So, ideally the export of weak abort() and the proposed patch should have been part of a series. But afaik, the export has been done to fix another build failure reported by Vineet. Andrew, I think the best way now is to apply the patch sent by Arnd, and I will send a separate patch to remove abort() after proper testing. -- Regards Sudip