Messages in this thread | | | From | Tri Vo <> | Date | Mon, 11 Mar 2019 21:57:42 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] gcov: add Clang support |
| |
On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 6:29 AM Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > On 23.01.2019 00:37, Tri Vo wrote: > > This patch series adds Clang supoprt for gcov. > > > > Patch 1 refactors existing code in preparation for Clang support. > > Patch 2 implements necessary LLVM runtime hooks and gcov kernel interfaces. > > Patch 3 updates documentation. > > Thanks for the updates! I've provided suggestions for some minor > improvements in my other review e-mails. > > With those changes applied, the patch set is in my opinion ready for > inclusion into the mainline kernel. My suggestion would be to re-post > the resulting version while putting Andrew Morton on CC as gcov changes > are typically integrated via his tree. > > Also I've successfully re-tested this patch set version on s390 using > GCC 7.3.0 to ensure that the existing GCC support is still working. > Unfortunately I wasn't able to test the Clang version due to some > compile problems on s390 (unrelated to this patch set). > > If you haven't done so, I would like to suggest to run the following > tests with the Clang gcov-kernel version that should catch problems in > some corner cases: > > 1. Unload a module, then use llvm-cov on the associated coverage file. > > Expectation: correct llvm-cov output including coverage of module > exit code. > > 2. Unload a module, modify its source, re-compile it and load it again, > then use llvm-cov on the associated coverage file. > > Expectation: kernel message "discarding saved data", correct llvm-cov > output with no coverage of module exit code. > > 3. Unload a module, then reset all coverage data by writing to > /sys/kernel/debug/gcov/reset. > > Expectation: all coverage files associated with the module are > removed from debugfs.
Thanks for the suggested test cases! The current patchset doesn't seem to handle module loading/unloading correctly. I'll fix that in a follow-up.
| |