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.
