Re: [PATCH RFC] riscv: Allow to build only with LLVM >= 17.0.0

[Alexandre Ghiti]

On 17/07/2024 13:41, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
> Hi Conor,
>
> On 17/07/2024 13:32, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 01:17:16PM +0200, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
> > > The following build failure happens when using LLVM < 17.0.0:
> > >
> > > kernel/sched/core.c:11873:7: error: cannot jump from this asm goto 
> > > statement to one of its possible targets
> > >
> > > This is a known issue [1] so let's upgrade the minimal requirement for
> > > LLVM to the version 17.0.0, which is the first version to contain the
> > > fix.
> > I think doing this unilaterally is kinda insane, LLVM 17 isn't even a
> > year old. Debian testing doesn't have anything later than 16.
>
>
> Debian will very likely select the qspinlocks when available anyway, 
> so they'll need llvm >= 17. And Debian won't ship a kernel >= 6.11 
> until some time right? So they'll probably update their infra to llvm 
> >= 17 (and they'll probably do to take advantages of the new extensions).
>
>
> > Why does
> > it need to be done unilaterally rather than just when the qspinlock
> > stuff is built?
>
>
> We can do that indeed, it may happen again and we can keep requiring 
> llvm 17 on a per-config basis.
>
>
> > > Link: 
> > > https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/1886#issuecomment-1645979992 
> > > [1]
> > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Closes: 
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202407041157.odTZAYZ6-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/
> > > Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > If Nathan wrote the patch, you need to set him as the author of the
> > patch :)
>
>
> I thought I did, how should I do that then?
>
>
> > > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > This patch was done by Nathan, I'm just sending it as an RFC to get 
> > > quicker
> > > feedbacks.
> > >
> > > I tested it successfully.
> > >
> > > Note that the build failure happens on the not-yet merged qspinlock
> > > patchset.
> > >
> > >   scripts/min-tool-version.sh | 2 ++
> > >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/scripts/min-tool-version.sh b/scripts/min-tool-version.sh
> > > index 91c91201212c..e81eb7ed257d 100755
> > > --- a/scripts/min-tool-version.sh
> > > +++ b/scripts/min-tool-version.sh
> > > @@ -28,6 +28,8 @@ llvm)
> > >           echo 15.0.0
> > >       elif [ "$SRCARCH" = loongarch ]; then
> > >           echo 18.0.0
> > > +    elif [ "$SRCARCH" = riscv ]; then
> > > +        echo 17.0.0
> > >       else
> > >           echo 13.0.1
> > >       fi
> > > --
> > > 2.39.2
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > linux-riscv mailing list
> > > linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-riscv mailing list
> linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv


So we discussed that during the patchwork meeting and this patch is not 
wanted, the idea is rather to get rid of the build error.

I was given a few ideas so I'll try those and we'll see what the 
resulting code looks like, hopefully not ugly otherwise I'll re-open the 
discussion :)

Thanks Nathan for the patch,

Alex