Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] riscv: enable HAVE_LD_DEAD_CODE_DATA_ELIMINATION

From: Palmer Dabbelt
Date: Tue Jun 20 2023 - 16:41:34 EST


On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 13:32:32 PDT (-0700), ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 4:13 PM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 04:05:55PM -0400, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 6:06 PM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 06:54:33 PDT (-0700), Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> > > On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 09:25:49 PDT (-0700), jszhang@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > >> On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 07:49:17AM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> > >>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 09:54:58 PDT (-0700), jszhang@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> > >> Commit 3b90b09af5be ("riscv: Fix orphan section warnings caused by
> > >> kernel/pi") touches vmlinux.lds.S, so to make the merge easy, this
> > >> series is based on 6.4-rc2.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> >
> > Sorry to be so slow here, but I think this is causing LLD to hang on
> > allmodconfig. I'm still getting to the bottom of it, there's a few
> > other things I have in flight still.
>
> Confirmed with v3 on mainline (linux-next is pretty red at the moment).
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20230517082936.37563-1-falcon@xxxxxxxxxxx/

Just FYI Nick, there's been some concurrent work here from different
people working on the same thing & the v3 you linked (from Zhangjin) was
superseded by this v2 (from Jisheng).

Ah! I've been testing the deprecated patch set, sorry I just looked on
lore for "dead code" on riscv-linux and grabbed the first thread,
without noticing the difference in authors or new version numbers for
distinct series. ok, nevermind my noise. I'll follow up with the
correct patch set, sorry!

Ya, I hadn't even noticed the v3 because I pretty much only look at patchwork these days. Like we talked about in IRC, I'm going to go test the merge of this one and see what's up -- I've got it staged at <https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/palmer/linux.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=1bd2963b21758a773206a1cb67c93e7a8ae8a195>, though that won't be a stable hash if it's actually broken...



Cheers,
Conor.



--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers