"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Today's linux-next bboot of the powerpc pseries_le_defconfig build >> produced these different kernel messages (diff from yesterday's tree): >> >> - ftrace: allocating 33658 entries in 13 pages >> - ftrace: allocated 13 pages with 3 groups >> + ftrace-powerpc: Address of ftrace_regs_caller out of range of kernel_toc. > > Thanks for the report. I think that is due to: > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/patch/bb6626e884acffe87b58736291df57db3deaa9b9.1652074503.git.christophe.leroy@xxxxxxxxxx/ Yep, I bisected it there. I should really read my email before bisecting :) > The below diff fixes it for me: > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/trace/ftrace.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/trace/ftrace.c > index 46c002a8388804..7418da705d43ac 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/trace/ftrace.c > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/trace/ftrace.c > @@ -746,7 +746,7 @@ int __init ftrace_dyn_arch_init(void) > > reladdr = addr - kernel_toc_addr(); > > - if (reladdr >= SZ_2G || reladdr < -SZ_2G) { > + if (reladdr >= SZ_2G || reladdr < -_UL(SZ_2G)) { > pr_err("Address of %ps out of range of kernel_toc.\n", > (void *)addr); > return -1; I did: if (reladdr >= SZ_2G || reladdr < -(long)SZ_2G) { Which more closely matches what the old code did, and I think is more obvious? ie. we don't want to negate the unsigned value, we want a signed value, and then the negative of that. cheers
