From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from canpmsgout09.his.huawei.com (canpmsgout09.his.huawei.com [113.46.200.224]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38C9833689D for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 02:41:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.224 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784601706; cv=none; b=k0DtXYiRwEhXWiaaBxHYu2TCr/TF9ySHwZLS4rvNmPsskQ6EfdbKv5lrwe6Ub1QBIdOC5P43eUqO3ZZF0bKhvVf20OfGtjAwIb3CmE3XlPPtn9V1YZx6XzgShaFwVAgN72kG+KeVTL0RiCwe72gaNpYyoatiQQFLQMpvlVOQ/QE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784601706; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Xc5xP3RMK7JGcwdoG57AziGF0CUZfmOEMgGquXMwzmQ=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=AAf1BSSeU2a/cAqCAnmYAQMwnjsyS+runHOOwOioqN5Te0ec1JFP68ksRZ60bb00kUW65PywV/YFVfCNmrCRIDWmcdcyPH+ot05VdEt+6rcZA1UIje4smNfV8ITTjB+iPFLFyCbUi2DGlzoCOvKlwuauKgtg+s2s1gZhpmpOTcE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.b=Jh2QhN7S; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.224 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.b="Jh2QhN7S" dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=huawei.com; s=dkim; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; h=From; bh=bzyAHzOZk4wTL0GhNyRIUMEUd3XIHWrH/GrEF8jOUXc=; b=Jh2QhN7SUc8z2g2EYtOl184ldApmVVO8byVWKr3zrvb6AtmbI3lLfiC/LGHrwTxyaeT8XXnjy 8lozdhVZ1YvSls0Tdo+pc/9gM3+mPkhKyTdo/alKk67JzElaafbQImrvtmFw363qgizbXVjDVHZ XPgGipjVn/xK4vsOJuQHLZA= Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.163.200]) by canpmsgout09.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4h41cW4lJQz1cyTS; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 10:32:11 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggpemf500011.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.185.36.131]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 215414055B; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 10:41:32 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.67.109.254] (10.67.109.254) by dggpemf500011.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.131) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 10:41:31 +0800 Message-ID: <928b341f-0a79-4c11-9af7-06497d1ecfd2@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 10:41:30 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] entry: Provide stub for syscall_enter_audit() when auditing is disabled To: Thomas Gleixner , , , CC: kernel test robot , , Sven Schnelle References: <20260720094921.537716-1-ruanjinjie@huawei.com> <87cxwhn09i.ffs@fw13> <87a4rlmrx8.ffs@fw13> From: Jinjie Ruan In-Reply-To: <87a4rlmrx8.ffs@fw13> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: kwepems100001.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.238) To dggpemf500011.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.131) On 7/21/2026 2:34 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, Jul 20 2026 at 17:34, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 20 2026 at 17:49, Jinjie Ruan wrote: >> The .config in the report builds without problems with s390-linux-gcc >> 15.2.0 (I verified that before merging), but fails with the version used >> by the robot: >> >> compiler: s390-linux-gcc (GCC) 13.4.0 >> >> So that's a broken compiler and without understanding the actual root >> cause we are not going to paper over it. > > What's even more amazing is that the same config modified for x86/64 > builds just fine with gcc 13.4.0, while one would assume that the > decision to uninline a basically empty inline would happen before the > architecture specific backend is invoked. But what do I know. :) Yes, I also couldn't reproduce this compilation issue on x86, so it does appear to be a compiler problem. >