Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 11 Jun 2020 22:38:40 +0000 | Subject | | From | <> |
| |
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:38:38 -0700 From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> To: Michael Ellerman <patch-notifications@ellerman.id.au>, christophe.leroy@c-s.fr, segher@kernel.crashing.org Cc: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, npiggin@gmail.com, segher@kernel.crashing.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] powerpc/uaccess: Implement unsafe_put_user() using 'asm goto' Message-ID: <20200611223838.GA60089@google.com> References: <23e680624680a9a5405f4b88740d2596d4b17c26.1587143308.git.christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> <49YBKY13Szz9sT4@ozlabs.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49YBKY13Szz9sT4@ozlabs.org>
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 02:24:16PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > On Fri, 2020-04-17 at 17:08:51 UTC, Christophe Leroy wrote: > > unsafe_put_user() is designed to take benefit of 'asm goto'. > > > > Instead of using the standard __put_user() approach and branch > > based on the returned error, use 'asm goto' and make the > > exception code branch directly to the error label. There is > > no code anymore in the fixup section. > > > > This change significantly simplifies functions using > > unsafe_put_user() > ... > > > > Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> > > Reviewed-by: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
> Applied to powerpc topic/uaccess-ppc, thanks.
> https://git.kernel.org/powerpc/c/334710b1496af8a0960e70121f850e209c20958f
> cheers
Hello! It seems this patch broke our ppc32 builds, and we had to disable them [0]. :(
From what I can tell, though Michael mentioned this was merged on May 29, but our CI of -next was green for ppc32 until June 4, then mainline went red June 6. So this patch only got 2 days of soak time before the merge window opened.
A general issue with the -next workflow seems to be that patches get different amounts of soak time. For higher risk patches like this one, can I please ask that they be help back a release if close to the merge window?
Segher, Cristophe, I suspect Clang is missing support for the %L and %U output templates [1]. I've implemented support for some of these before in Clang via the documentation at [2], but these seem to be machine specific? Can you please point me to documentation/unit tests/source for these so that I can figure out what they should be doing, and look into implementing them in Clang?
(Apologies for the tone off this email; I had typed up a nice fuller report with links, but it seemed that mutt wrote out an empty postponed file, and I kind of just want to put my laptop in the garbage right now. I suspect our internal SMTP tool will also mess up some headers, but lets see (Also, too lazy+angry right now to solve).)
[0] https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/continuous-integration/pull/279 [1] https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46186 [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Output-Template.html#Output-Template
| |