Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 02 Mar 2014 05:37:13 -0500 | From | David Long <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6 07/14] ARM: Remove use of struct kprobe from generic probes code |
| |
On 02/28/14 05:12, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 02:38:58AM -0500, David Long wrote: >> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/probes.c b/arch/arm/kernel/probes.c >> index 7cd1763..179deac 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/probes.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/probes.c >> @@ -12,11 +12,9 @@ >> */ >> >> #include <linux/kernel.h> >> -#include <linux/kprobes.h> >> #include <asm/system_info.h> > > How well has this code been tested? This file doesn't even build because > (I suspect) the above change: > > arch/arm/kernel/probes.c: In function 'test_alu_write_pc_interworking': > arch/arm/kernel/probes.c:68:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'BUG_ON' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > make[2]: *** [arch/arm/kernel/probes.o] Error 1 > > This is because linux/kprobes.h includes linux/bug.h, which would provide > the requirements for BUG_ON(). >
It was tested by building and running on Panda with all four permutations of uprobes and kprobes enabled/disabled. x86 was also test built and run to verify no regressions, and other testing was done inside Linaro for arm64 endianess correctness. Very recently daily build testing has been added and this config problem has shown up, and our test configs adjusted accordingly. I think the problem was masked on panda by CONFIG_PROFILING being set for that (and many other) platform(s). On x86 it looks like the problem is avoided by CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS always being set in arch/x86/Kconfig.
I was not aware of the use/requirement (or existence even) of randconfig for validation testing, nor did I know a config dependency issue like this one would be considered a showstopper problem.
-dl
| |