stable-rc build: 2 warnings 0 failures (stable-rc/v4.14.13-119-gb32d455)

[Ard Biesheuvel]

On 15 January 2018 at 15:17, Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Ard Biesheuvel
> <ard.biesheuvel at linaro.org> wrote:
>> On 15 January 2018 at 13:38, Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Olof's autobuilder <build at lixom.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Warnings:
>>>>
>>>>         arm.allmodconfig:
>>>> /tmp/cccX4oa4.s:18153: Warning: using r15 results in unpredictable behaviour
>>>> /tmp/cccX4oa4.s:18225: Warning: using r15 results in unpredictable behaviour
>>>
>>> This appears to be an old issue that only now started to get reported
>>> here. From what I can
>>> tell, new versions of binutils warn about two isntructions in the kprobes test:
>>>
>>> Maybe we can work around it using a patch like below?
>>>
>>>         Arnd
>>>
>>
>> Can't we just add -Wa,--no-warn for this file?
>
> Probably (have not tried). Any reason for preferring one approach over
> the other?
> My suggestion for using __inst_arm() was based on that macro already being
> used a lot in the file, I just don't know if I used it right.
>
> If we turn off the warnings, would you change some of the __inst_arm()
> back intro the proper instructions?
>

TBH I didn't look at the file before replying. But it appears some of
the opcodes trigger errors rather than warnings, so we can't get rid
of all of them. I still think just disabling assembler warnings is
justified here.

>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-arm.c
>>> b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-arm.c
>>> index 8866aedfdea2..8b7df0ce04d2 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-arm.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-arm.c
>>> @@ -169,10 +169,10 @@ void kprobe_arm_test_cases(void)
>>>
>>>         /* Data-processing with PC as a target and status registers updated */
>>>         TEST_UNSUPPORTED("movs  pc, r1")
>>> -       TEST_UNSUPPORTED("movs  pc, r1, lsl r2")
>>> +       TEST_UNSUPPORTED(__inst_arm(0xe1b0f211) "       @ movs  pc, r1, lsl r2")
>>>         TEST_UNSUPPORTED("movs  pc, #0x10000")
>>>         TEST_UNSUPPORTED("adds  pc, lr, r1")
>>> -       TEST_UNSUPPORTED("adds  pc, lr, r1, lsl r2")
>>> +       TEST_UNSUPPORTED(__inst_arm(0xe09ef211) "       @ adds  pc,
>>> lr, r1, lsl r2")
>>>         TEST_UNSUPPORTED("adds  pc, lr, #4")
>>>
>>>         /* Data-processing with SP as target */