Re: [RFC PATCH v4 4/4] objtool: fix x86 orc generation on big endian cross compiles
On Sun, Oct 04, 2020 at 04:30:54PM +0200, Vasily Gorbik wrote: > @@ -77,8 +78,9 @@ static int get_alt_entry(struct elf *elf, struct > special_entry *entry, > if (entry->feature) { > unsigned short feature; > > - feature = *(unsigned short *)(sec->data->d_buf + offset + > - entry->feature); > + feature = bswap_if_needed(*(unsigned short *)(sec->data->d_buf + > + offset + > + entry->feature)); > arch_handle_alternative(feature, alt); > } > --- > arch/x86/include/asm/orc_types.h | 10 + > tools/arch/x86/include/asm/orc_types.h| 10 + > .../arch/x86/include/arch_endianness.h| 9 + > tools/objtool/check.c | 5 ++- > tools/objtool/endianness.h| 38 +++ > tools/objtool/orc_dump.c | 5 ++- > tools/objtool/orc_gen.c | 3 ++ > tools/objtool/special.c | 6 ++- > 8 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 tools/objtool/arch/x86/include/arch_endianness.h > create mode 100644 tools/objtool/endianness.h > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/orc_types.h > b/arch/x86/include/asm/orc_types.h > index fdbffec4cfde..5a2baf28a1dc 100644 This patch is misformatted. Almost like it was concatenated with itself? -- Josh
Re: [RFC PATCH v4 4/4] objtool: fix x86 orc generation on big endian cross compiles
On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 09:03:28AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Sun, Oct 04, 2020 at 04:30:54PM +0200, Vasily Gorbik wrote: > > @@ -77,8 +78,9 @@ static int get_alt_entry(struct elf *elf, struct > > special_entry *entry, > > if (entry->feature) { > > unsigned short feature; > > > > - feature = *(unsigned short *)(sec->data->d_buf + offset + > > - entry->feature); > > + feature = bswap_if_needed(*(unsigned short *)(sec->data->d_buf + > > + offset + > > + entry->feature)); > > arch_handle_alternative(feature, alt); > > } > > --- > > arch/x86/include/asm/orc_types.h | 10 + > > tools/arch/x86/include/asm/orc_types.h| 10 + > > .../arch/x86/include/arch_endianness.h| 9 + > > This patch is misformatted. Almost like it was concatenated with > itself? Indeed. I wonder how that could have happened. Sorry for that. I've resent patches with rebased patch "objtool: avoid ../ headers includes and name clashes" on top. This time I checked patches could be applied from outgoing mailbox before sending it.