Alex Shi <alex.shi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 在 2020/11/11 上午3:50, Andrew Morton 写道:
>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 08:39:24 +0530 Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 4:55 PM Alex Shi <alex.shi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise it cause gcc warning:
>>>> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>> ../mm/filemap.c:830:14: warning: no previous prototype for
>>>> ‘__add_to_page_cache_locked’ [-Wmissing-prototypes]
>>>> noinline int __add_to_page_cache_locked(struct page *page,
>>>> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>> Is CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF enabled in your .config ?
>>
>> hm, yes.
>
> When the config enabled, compiling looks good untill pahole tool
> used to get BTF info, but I still failed on a right version pahole
>> 1.16. Sorry.
I'm seeing an issue with this patch. My build system has pahole v1.17,
but I don't think the pahole version is key.
$ git checkout 3351b16af494 # recently added to linus/master
$ make defconfig
$ make menuconfig # set CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL and CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF
$ make V=1
+ ./tools/bpf/resolve_btfids/resolve_btfids vmlinux
FAILED unresolved symbol __add_to_page_cache_locked
Reverting 3351b16af494 ("mm/filemap: add static for function
__add_to_page_cache_locked") fixes the issue.
I don't see the warning which motivated this patch, but maybe it
requires particular a .config or gcc version. Perhaps adding a
__add_to_page_cache_locked() prototype would meet avoid it. But I
haven't studied enough on BTF to know if there's a better answer.
>>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> ---
>>>> mm/filemap.c | 2 +-
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/mm/filemap.c b/mm/filemap.c
>>>> index d90614f501da..249cf489f5df 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/filemap.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/filemap.c
>>>> @@ -827,7 +827,7 @@ int replace_page_cache_page(struct page *old, struct page *new, gfp_t gfp_mask)
>>>> }
>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(replace_page_cache_page);
>>>>
>>>> -noinline int __add_to_page_cache_locked(struct page *page,
>>>> +static noinline int __add_to_page_cache_locked(struct page *page,
>>>> struct address_space *mapping,
>>>> pgoff_t offset, gfp_t gfp,
>>>> void **shadowp)
>>
>> It's unclear to me whether BTF_ID() requires that the target symbol be
>> non-static. It doesn't actually reference the symbol:
>>
>> #define BTF_ID(prefix, name) \
>> __BTF_ID(__ID(__BTF_ID__##prefix##__##name##__))
>>
>
> The above usage make me thought BTF don't require the symbol, though
> the symbol still exist in vmlinux with 'static'.
>
> So any comments of this, Alexei?
>
>> Alexei, can you please comment?
>>
