Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 23 May 2023 18:29:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:     Re: linux-next: Tree for May 15 (several RV64 build errors)
In-Reply-To: <e2279988-03b4-9670-6f1c-c360c478b38e@infradead.org>
CC:     alex@ghiti.fr, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
        Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
From:   Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>
To:     rdunlap@infradead.org
Message-ID: <mhng-e172207d-d67d-46ab-ab95-85f0a854ace2@palmer-ri-x1c9a>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (MHng)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 23 May 2023 17:22:20 PDT (-0700), rdunlap@infradead.org wrote:
>
>
> On 5/23/23 06:07, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
>>
>> On 23/05/2023 04:28, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 5/19/23 03:42, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
>>>>>> /opt/crosstool/gcc-12.2.0-nolibc/riscv64-linux/bin/riscv64-linux-ld: section .data LMA [000000000041a000,00000000075bffd7] overlaps section .text LMA [00000000000f09d4,00000000033562ab]
>>>>>> /opt/crosstool/gcc-12.2.0-nolibc/riscv64-linux/bin/riscv64-linux-ld: section .init.pi.text LMA [00000000033562ac,0000000003359137] overlaps section .data LMA [000000000041a000,00000000075bffd7]
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll check this one too which seems to be related to kernel/pi introduction.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to Bjorn: this is caused by XIP_KERNEL, which is known to have limited size, hence the overlap, so no fix for this one. Is there a way to exclude this config from randconfig?
>>> Does this mean exclude XIP_KERNEL or something else from randconfigs?
>>
>>
>> I meant excluding XIP_KERNEL from randconfigs: it has very strict constraints regarding what can/can't be enabled then it needs human intervention to make sure the error above does not happen. So I would not bother testing this in randconfigs if possible.
>
> I can exclude it from my randconfig builds, but I don't know of a way to exclude it from randconfig builds in general (i.e., for everyone).

Arnd had suggested a trick related to menus that would result in 
randconfig never enabling some config.  It'd suggested for 
CONFIG_NONPORTABLE, but we didn't use it because it'd reduce randconfig 
coverage.

Maybe we should add a CONFIG_VERYSPECIAL of some sort and hide things 
like XIP behind it (maybe M-mode too)?