Re: [PATCH] coverage: filter out lib{fdt,elf}-temp.o

2024-01-22 Thread Jan Beulich
On 22.01.2024 12:05, Anthony PERARD wrote: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 10:54:13AM +, Anthony PERARD wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 11:04:41AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 19.01.2024 16:25, Anthony PERARD wrote: On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 09:43:30AM +0100, Michal Orzel wrote: > Is my

Re: [PATCH] coverage: filter out lib{fdt,elf}-temp.o

2024-01-22 Thread Michal Orzel
On 22/01/2024 12:05, Anthony PERARD wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 10:54:13AM +, Anthony PERARD wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 11:04:41AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 19.01.2024 16:25, Anthony PERARD wrote: On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 09:43:30AM +0100, Michal Orzel wrote:

Re: [PATCH] coverage: filter out lib{fdt,elf}-temp.o

2024-01-22 Thread Anthony PERARD
On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 10:54:13AM +, Anthony PERARD wrote: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 11:04:41AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > > On 19.01.2024 16:25, Anthony PERARD wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 09:43:30AM +0100, Michal Orzel wrote: > > >> Is my understanding correct that by switching

Re: [PATCH] coverage: filter out lib{fdt,elf}-temp.o

2024-01-22 Thread Jan Beulich
On 22.01.2024 11:54, Anthony PERARD wrote: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 11:04:41AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 19.01.2024 16:25, Anthony PERARD wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 09:43:30AM +0100, Michal Orzel wrote: Is my understanding correct that by switching from extra-y to targets we

Re: [PATCH] coverage: filter out lib{fdt,elf}-temp.o

2024-01-22 Thread Anthony PERARD
On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 11:04:41AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 19.01.2024 16:25, Anthony PERARD wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 09:43:30AM +0100, Michal Orzel wrote: > >> Is my understanding correct that by switching from extra-y to targets we > >> are preventing these objects to > >>

Re: [PATCH] coverage: filter out lib{fdt,elf}-temp.o

2024-01-22 Thread Jan Beulich
On 19.01.2024 16:25, Anthony PERARD wrote: > On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 09:43:30AM +0100, Michal Orzel wrote: >> Is my understanding correct that by switching from extra-y to targets we are >> preventing these objects to >> appear in non-init-objects (and thus having COV_FLAGS appended) while >>

Re: [PATCH] coverage: filter out lib{fdt,elf}-temp.o

2024-01-19 Thread Anthony PERARD
On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 09:43:30AM +0100, Michal Orzel wrote: > Is my understanding correct that by switching from extra-y to targets we are > preventing these objects to > appear in non-init-objects (and thus having COV_FLAGS appended) while > retaining the proper if_changed behavior? > >

Re: [PATCH] coverage: filter out lib{fdt,elf}-temp.o

2024-01-19 Thread Michal Orzel
Hi Anthony, On 18/01/2024 18:37, Anthony PERARD wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 02:12:21PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 18.01.2024 13:06, Michal Orzel wrote: >>> At the moment, trying to run xencov read/reset (calling SYSCTL_coverage_op >>> under the hood) results in a crash. This is

Re: [PATCH] coverage: filter out lib{fdt,elf}-temp.o

2024-01-18 Thread Anthony PERARD
On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 02:12:21PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 18.01.2024 13:06, Michal Orzel wrote: > > At the moment, trying to run xencov read/reset (calling SYSCTL_coverage_op > > under the hood) results in a crash. This is due to an attempt to > > access code in the .init.* sections

Re: [PATCH] coverage: filter out lib{fdt,elf}-temp.o

2024-01-18 Thread Jan Beulich
On 18.01.2024 15:40, Michal Orzel wrote: > On 18/01/2024 14:12, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 18.01.2024 13:06, Michal Orzel wrote: >>> At the moment, trying to run xencov read/reset (calling SYSCTL_coverage_op >>> under the hood) results in a crash. This is due to an attempt to >>> access code in the

Re: [PATCH] coverage: filter out lib{fdt,elf}-temp.o

2024-01-18 Thread Michal Orzel
Hi Jan, On 18/01/2024 14:12, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > On 18.01.2024 13:06, Michal Orzel wrote: >> At the moment, trying to run xencov read/reset (calling SYSCTL_coverage_op >> under the hood) results in a crash. This is due to an attempt to >> access code in the .init.* sections (libfdt for Arm

Re: [PATCH] coverage: filter out lib{fdt,elf}-temp.o

2024-01-18 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 18/01/2024 12:06 pm, Michal Orzel wrote: > At the moment, trying to run xencov read/reset (calling SYSCTL_coverage_op > under the hood) results in a crash. This is due to an attempt to > access code in the .init.* sections Minor point, but for coverage it's only data.  It's the per-basic-block

Re: [PATCH] coverage: filter out lib{fdt,elf}-temp.o

2024-01-18 Thread Jan Beulich
On 18.01.2024 13:06, Michal Orzel wrote: > At the moment, trying to run xencov read/reset (calling SYSCTL_coverage_op > under the hood) results in a crash. This is due to an attempt to > access code in the .init.* sections (libfdt for Arm and libelf for x86) > that are stripped after boot.

[PATCH] coverage: filter out lib{fdt,elf}-temp.o

2024-01-18 Thread Michal Orzel
At the moment, trying to run xencov read/reset (calling SYSCTL_coverage_op under the hood) results in a crash. This is due to an attempt to access code in the .init.* sections (libfdt for Arm and libelf for x86) that are stripped after boot. Normally, the build system compiles any *.init.o file