Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of most trees
From: Nicholas Piggin
Date: Thu Jun 22 2017 - 23:34:31 EST
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 10:56:48 -0400 (EDT)
David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 00:33:39 +1000
> > On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 10:13:06 -0400 (EDT)
> > David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> From: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 18:41:16 +1000
> >> > Is there any way for the linker to place the inputs to avoid unresolvable
> >> > relocations where possible?
> >> I don't think so.
> >> > A way to work around this is to make arch/sparc/lib/hweight.o an obj-y
> >> > rather than lib-y. That's a hack because it just serves to move the
> >> > input location, but not really any more of a hack than the current code
> >> > that also only works because of input locations...
> >> I could adjust those branches in the sparc code into indirect calls
> >> but it's going to perform a bit poorly on older cpus.
> > The build succeeds with your patch. That should solve it properly
> > so it won't come back to bite again.
> > If you can tolerate the slowdown on old CPUs I'd be grateful if
> > we could merge it for linux-next to get this thin archives tree
> > unblocked.
> Feel free to merge it into your series:
> sparc64: Use indirect calls in hamming weight stubs.
> Otherwise, depending upon link order, the branch relocation
> limits could be exceeded.
> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks for the patch, looks good to me.