From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM,FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HK_RANDOM_FROM,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEE47C2D0C9 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 21:08:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF1BD2467F for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 21:08:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="D7V/LJBA" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org EF1BD2467F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 18E7D8E001A; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 16:08:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 13E688E0001; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 16:08:22 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 02DC08E001A; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 16:08:21 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0015.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.15]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEDFE8E0001 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 16:08:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin30.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A3AD452D7 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 21:08:21 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76261356402.30.crowd20_2bd49a4eeee59 X-HE-Tag: crowd20_2bd49a4eeee59 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 4871 Received: from mail-pg1-f193.google.com (mail-pg1-f193.google.com [209.85.215.193]) by imf42.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 21:08:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg1-f193.google.com with SMTP id x8so67628pgk.8 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 13:08:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Aur/Px0pwmfL3LzajV1sOTCWH1iRm6As8lK2q+00Kvk=; b=D7V/LJBAAvbi9quTcVnP/sUE97WgYXBhfFwHfKAwvCJ7Mnte3NFSQ2PwU4zKbWGwYs hpOQtYKpnWyUVMDEYTt0aU1agAgiGQsc8lFhsNtnJyW9uKQwSGfCDf/HJMmuFLNp/ovu KheVolmc4OUFCpCOvox+x3LAcvUulj9JPhazxFn5VMgoOx/ALU7FEquTym5anvDUevzQ pxL0LWf9kMd665fQfalNafdE+QJZEk+9m3E2fawui0ThRVGLKpFj7ZKQFSbMKes0obgp VM/p1TCB8CUEoiOTlLLiDYSBEbzl0tubmbzb3ydzypbamxgob6tUnZ5tLMoLnJnc3/wd SxKQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Aur/Px0pwmfL3LzajV1sOTCWH1iRm6As8lK2q+00Kvk=; b=XS8VfibuylSDsWAYUkk98GN072Dlp4ooDfKmb6ukSODEHuc+vxB40G7gAyppFAaSPW BI5T14m13aVUx26h77Nrk5ZCMlv0V5dO50CbtV4ZBEZgx62NIfOY8T30jjcmFAb7fzOw eHXju3BKeQN02kYU6k2B+l1pLvrFl+HTRm+LB88C7ag+KrVrW9lr1O2QjcpRnHKeMxD0 ShWWeTjGTrZ31kF1i5FYx3weimMNZTkH81PKUA/pqqyWBlFmWc7ijQQ4H0iZtkJk2irg EUNHJ5LtIZ7swAQGjTCPv6DvYSCHhbo+jrwmyqJJs4i0JZmuwgd5ChcQWGAedD0q5eY7 16hw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU4pkY/o+Z32bdcnajsONJWZ1kejSYsoM+OnBUILUdz0tgddsQr R8lF5c+GEwIDcC/iow3DCc84jSIqRXnGvPAWLEs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxSkjKFoBVv7Ad12ZCq/bsvrWkPd42fTjHxdDc3ENs++tJHZ7K+wilKZt1FDx0auoBCVdQOAkEh57V4XaKi45g= X-Received: by 2002:a63:5062:: with SMTP id q34mr1679417pgl.378.1576271299928; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 13:08:19 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <201912100401.fDYi5lhU%lkp@intel.com> <20191213111649.GU32742@smile.fi.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20191213111649.GU32742@smile.fi.intel.com> From: Max Filippov Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 13:08:08 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: WARNING: lib/test_bitmap.o(.text.unlikely+0x5c): Section mismatch in reference from the function bitmap_copy_clear_tail() to the variable .init.rodata:clump_exp To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: kbuild test robot , kbuild-all@lists.01.org, LKML , Andrew Morton , Linux Memory Management List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: Hi Andy, On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 3:16 AM Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 04:17:03AM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote: > > +Cc: Max for xtensa matters, perhaps he has an idea. > > > tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master > > head: e42617b825f8073569da76dc4510bfa019b1c35a > > commit: 30544ed5de431fe25d3793e4dd5a058d877c4d77 lib/bitmap: introduce bitmap_replace() helper > > date: 5 days ago > > config: xtensa-randconfig-a001-20191209 (attached as .config) > > compiler: xtensa-linux-gcc (GCC) 7.5.0 > > reproduce: > > wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross -O ~/bin/make.cross > > chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross > > git checkout 30544ed5de431fe25d3793e4dd5a058d877c4d77 > > # save the attached .config to linux build tree > > GCC_VERSION=7.5.0 make.cross ARCH=xtensa > > > > If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag > > Reported-by: kbuild test robot > > > > All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>): > > I'm not sure I got this (esp. relation to my patch). > The mentioned code definitely compiled for 32-bit (since only then mentioned > bitmap API is in use). I have tried to reproduce on i386 compilation (gcc 9.x), > but can't. I was able to reproduce it on xtensa with gcc-9. The issue comes from the test "test_replace", specifically from the following call: bitmap_replace(bmap, &exp2[0], &exp2[1], exp2_to_exp3_mask, nbits); An invariable part of the call sequence used here is instantiated in the section .text.unlikely with a reference to exp2_to_exp3_mask built into it and it's called from the test_replace. It looks like a compiler bug to me, I'd expect this code to be emitted to the .init.text, i.e the same section where the function it was hoisted from resides. And why "unlikely"? This code is definitely executed. I'll file a bug against gcc. -- Thanks. -- Max