On Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 10:19 PM Thomas Weißschuh <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2024-12-03 18:06:26-0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 3:09 PM Thomas Weißschuh <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On 2024-12-03 14:31:01-0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 1:17 PM Thomas Weißschuh <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Currently warnings emitted by resolve_btfids are buried in the build log > > > > > and are slipping into mainline frequently. > > > > > Add an option to elevate warnings to hard errors so the CI bots can > > > > > catch any new warnings. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > tools/bpf/resolve_btfids/main.c | 12 ++++++++++-- > > > > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/tools/bpf/resolve_btfids/main.c b/tools/bpf/resolve_btfids/main.c > > > > > index bd9f960bce3d5b74dc34159b35af1e0b33524d2d..571d29d2da97fea75e5f9c544a95b9ac65f9e579 100644 > > > > > --- a/tools/bpf/resolve_btfids/main.c > > > > > +++ b/tools/bpf/resolve_btfids/main.c > > > > > @@ -141,6 +141,7 @@ struct object { > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > static int verbose; > > > > > +static int warnings; > > > > > > > > > > static int eprintf(int level, int var, const char *fmt, ...) > > > > > { > > > > > @@ -604,6 +605,7 @@ static int symbols_resolve(struct object *obj) > > > > > if (id->id) { > > > > > pr_info("WARN: multiple IDs found for '%s': %d, %d - using %d\n", > > > > > str, id->id, type_id, id->id); > > > > > + warnings++; > > > > > } else { > > > > > id->id = type_id; > > > > > (*nr)--; > > > > > @@ -625,8 +627,10 @@ static int id_patch(struct object *obj, struct btf_id *id) > > > > > int i; > > > > > > > > > > /* For set, set8, id->id may be 0 */ > > > > > - if (!id->id && !id->is_set && !id->is_set8) > > > > > + if (!id->id && !id->is_set && !id->is_set8) { > > > > > pr_err("WARN: resolve_btfids: unresolved symbol %s\n", id->name); > > > > > + warnings++; > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > > > for (i = 0; i < id->addr_cnt; i++) { > > > > > unsigned long addr = id->addr[i]; > > > > > @@ -782,6 +786,7 @@ int main(int argc, const char **argv) > > > > > .funcs = RB_ROOT, > > > > > .sets = RB_ROOT, > > > > > }; > > > > > + bool fatal_warnings = false; > > > > > struct option btfid_options[] = { > > > > > OPT_INCR('v', "verbose", &verbose, > > > > > "be more verbose (show errors, etc)"), > > > > > @@ -789,6 +794,8 @@ int main(int argc, const char **argv) > > > > > "BTF data"), > > > > > OPT_STRING('b', "btf_base", &obj.base_btf_path, "file", > > > > > "path of file providing base BTF"), > > > > > + OPT_BOOLEAN(0, "fatal-warnings", &fatal_warnings, > > > > > + "turn warnings into errors"), > > > > > > > > We are mixing naming styles here: we have "btf_base" with underscore > > > > separator, and you are adding "fatal-warnings" with dash separator. I > > > > personally like dashes, but whichever way we should stay consistent. > > > > So let's fix it, otherwise it looks a bit sloppy. > > > > > > Ack. > > > > > > > > > > > Please also use [PATCH bpf-next v3] subject prefix to make it explicit > > > > that this should go through bpf-next tree. > > > > > > Ack. > > > > > > > > > > > pw-bot: cr > > > > > > > > > OPT_END() > > > > > }; > > > > > int err = -1; > > > > > @@ -823,7 +830,8 @@ int main(int argc, const char **argv) > > > > > if (symbols_patch(&obj)) > > > > > goto out; > > > > > > > > > > - err = 0; > > > > > + if (!(fatal_warnings && warnings)) > > > > > + err = 0; > > > > > > > > nit: just > > > > > > > > if (!fatal_warnings) > > > > err = 0; > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > This seems wrong. Now the actual warning counter is never evaluated. > > > And --fatal_warnings will always lead to an error exit code. > > > > Ah, I missed that you are using default -1 value here. I wonder if we > > should make it a bit more explicit? > > > > if (fatal_warnings) > > err = warnings ? -1 : 0; > > else > > err = 0; > > > > Something like that? > > The existing code was the same. Also the rest of the function > relies on this. IMO the pattern is clear when looking at the resulting > code and not the diff. > But if you prefer I can change it of course. That new condition breaks my brain, but luckily I don't have to look at it often, so I don't care all that much. Feel free to leave it as is. > > > > > > out: > > > > > if (obj.efile.elf) { > > > > > elf_end(obj.efile.elf); > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > 2.47.1 > > > > >