On 29.11.2010, 21:11 Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 11/29/10 12:02, Mathias Krause wrote: >> On 29.11.2010, 20:54 Randy Dunlap wrote: >>> On 11/29/10 11:45, Mathias Krause wrote: >>>> On 29.11.2010, 20:31 Randy Dunlap wrote: >>>>> On 11/29/10 11:21, Mathias Krause wrote: >>>>>> On 29.11.2010, 19:54 Randy Dunlap wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/29/10 10:26, Mathias Krause wrote: >>>>>>>> On 29.11.2010, 17:31 Randy Dunlap wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:03:35 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Changes since 20101126: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> on i386 builds, I get tons of these (and more) errors: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:841: Error: bad register name `%r12' >>>>>>>>> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:842: Error: bad register name `%r13' >>>>>>>>> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:843: Error: bad register name `%r14' >>>>>>>>> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:844: Error: bad register name `%rsp' >>>>>>>>> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:849: Error: bad register name `%rsp' >>>>>>>>> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:850: Error: bad register name `%rsp' >>>>>>>>> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:851: Error: bad register name `%r9' >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> even though the kernel .config file says: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> CONFIG_CRYPTO_AES=m >>>>>>>>> CONFIG_CRYPTO_AES_586=m >>>>>>>>> CONFIG_CRYPTO_AES_NI_INTEL=m >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Should arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S be testing >>>>>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64 >>>>>>>>> instead of >>>>>>>>> #ifdef __x86_64__ >>>>>>>>> or does that not matter? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> or is this a toolchain issue? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, __x86_64__ should be a build-in define of the compiler while >>>>>>>> CONFIG_X86_64 is defined for 64 bit builds in include/generated/autoconf.h. >>>>>>>> So by using the latter we should be on the safe side but if your compiler >>>>>>>> defines __x86_64__ for 32-bit builds it's simply broken. Also git grep >>>>>>>> showed quite a few more places using __x86_64__ so those would miscompile on >>>>>>>> your toolchain, too. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But it looks like linux-next is just missing >>>>>>>> 559ad0ff1368baea14dbc3207d55b02bd69bda4b from Herbert's git repo at >>>>>>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/herbert/cryptodev-2.6.git. >>>>>>>> That should fix the build issue. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The build problem still happens when that patch is applied. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's weird. So it must be something with your toolchain. >>>>>> Can you please post the output of the following commands?: >>>>>> >>>>>> $ touch /tmp/null.c; cc -m32 -dD -E /tmp/null.c | grep -E 'x86|i.86' >>>>> >>>>> #define __i386 1 >>>>> #define __i386__ 1 >>>>> #define i386 1 >>>>> #define __i586 1 >>>>> #define __i586__ 1 >>>>> >>>>>> $ touch /tmp/null.c; cc -m64 -dD -E /tmp/null.c | grep -E 'x86|i.86' >>>>> >>>>> #define __x86_64 1 >>>>> #define __x86_64__ 1 >>>>> >>>>> So that's not the problem... and the patch below didn't help. >>>> >>>> That's odd. The output of the commands looks good so the x86-64 specific code >>>> should be left out for 32-bit builds. :/ >>>> >>>>> Sorry that I even asked about that. What next? >>>> >>>> Can you please post the full error message. Meanwhile I'm checking out a >>>> linux-next tree, trying to reproduce your problem. >>>> >>> >>> I just built with "make V=1" to see the full commands that are used, but >>> that didn't help me either: >>> >>> gcc -Wp,-MD,arch/x86/crypto/.aesni-intel_asm.o.d -nostdinc -isystem /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.4.1/include -I/lnx/src/NEXT/linux-next-20101129/arch/x86/include -Iinclude -I/lnx/src/NEXT/linux-next-20101129/include -include include/generated/autoconf.h -D__KERNEL__ -D__ASSEMBLY__ -m32 -DCONFIG_AS_CFI=1 -DCONFIG_AS_CFI_SIGNAL_FRAME=1 -DMODULE -c -o arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.o /lnx/src/NEXT/linux-next-20101129/arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S >>> >>> >>> There are 2945 lines like this: >>> >>> linux-next-20101129/arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:841: Error: bad register name `%r12' >> >> Well, in my tree (linux-next + 559ad0ff) line 841 is a comment. Albeit without >> 559ad0ff it's a 'push %r12'. So maybe you should apply the patch just once >> more to be sure. ;) > > Touche. > What does that patch have to do with aesni-intel?? The description should be clear enough: "crypto: aesni-intel - Fixed build error on x86-32". Here is the link to the patch: <http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/herbert/cryptodev-2.6.git;a=patch;h=559ad0ff1368baea14dbc3207d55b02bd69bda4b>. Please apply it on top of your linux-next build. > I'm using the linux-next tarball of 20111129. > However, your s/__x86_64__/CONFIG_X86_64/ patch was applied, so I dropped it. Well I doubt it. The patch was made on top of 559ad0ff so it should have failed to apply in your tree since obviously 559ad0ff is missing. > new output file: > http://oss.oracle.com/~rdunlap/doc/cry4.out Same bug: 559ad0ff is still missing. Please apply the patch from the link above. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
