Re: objtool warnings for kernel/trace/trace_selftest_dynamic.o

Hi, On Tue, Dec 18 2018, Andi Kleen wrote: >> OK, I have read through it and with the caveats that I don't quite >> understand what the failure is, that also believe attribute noclone >> should not affect frame pointer generation, and that I don't quite get >> how LTO comes into play, my comments

Re: objtool warnings for kernel/trace/trace_selftest_dynamic.o

Hi, On Tue, Dec 18 2018, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 01:15:40PM +0100, Martin Jambor wrote: >> I'm afraid I cannot give an opinion what you should do in this case >> without understanding the problem better. If you can isolate the case >> where no

Re: objtool warnings for kernel/trace/trace_selftest_dynamic.o

Hi, On Tue, Dec 18 2018, Miroslav Benes wrote: >> Sorry for suggesting this prematurely, my email client stopped syncing >> and I missed your later replies to Peter about this. >> >> > > Should it be reverted, or just remove the noclone, and keep the >> > > noinline? >> > >> > It should not be

Re: [PATCH] scsi: fc: force inlining of wwn conversion functions

Hi, On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 05:58:20PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 26 April 2016 09:06:54 Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > > "Arnd" == Arnd Bergmann writes: > > > > Arnd> I don't think we can realistically blacklist gcc-4.9.{0,1,2,3}, > > Arnd> gcc-5.{0,1,2,3}.* and

Re: [PATCH] scsi: fc: force inlining of wwn conversion functions

Hi, On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 05:58:20PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 26 April 2016 09:06:54 Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > > "Arnd" == Arnd Bergmann writes: > > > > Arnd> I don't think we can realistically blacklist gcc-4.9.{0,1,2,3}, > > Arnd> gcc-5.{0,1,2,3}.* and gcc-6.0 and