Explain the 6.1 sections differences and leave objtool sections out - #47
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This gets
rk sections-diffon 6.1.188 to 382 differences, all explained.Twelve rows were
.retpoline_sitesor.return_sitesfound in one build's object and not the other's. On 6.1 objtool writes those into every object, and whether one is there just follows from whether the code has an indirect call or aret. #46 already stopped counting their entries, so the sections an object is compared on now leave them out too, along with the rest of what objtool writes. There's a test for it.The other five rows get rules:
.init.rodatain rtc.o: gcc unrolls the loop over the threeidsinadd_rtc_cmos, folds the loads and drops the array. rucc keeps it. This is the same cause as the.rodatarule.crngBUG_ONs in random.c, theext4_add_complete_ioWARN and thecheck_copy_sizeWARN are the ones already explained on 6.12 and 7.2.8, at 6.1's line numbers.ext4_split_extent_atfor both DATA_VALID flags. None of its four callers can pass both, so rucc drops the check.Part of #3.