* Jiri Slaby: > The dot makes the difference, of course. The question is why is it > there? I keep looking into it. Only if someone has an immediate > idea... We see the failure on aarch64 as well, with 8404c9fbc84b741 (from Linus' tree). As far as I can tell, the core issue is that BTF_ID is applied to a symbol which is defined as static on the C side (and even in a different translation unit, but this aspect doesn't really matter). The compiler can and will change symbol names, calling conventions and data layout for static functions/variables, so this is never going to work reliably. It is possible to inhibit these optimizations by using __attribute__ ((used)). But I'm pretty sure that BTF generation fails to work properly if there are symbol name collisions, so I think it's better to drop the static and rely on duplicate symbol checks from the linker (which of course does not happen for C entities declared static). Thanks, Florian
