From 7e61560628d17ea6b1d8ee370f6d42694cff8758 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ulises Mendez Martinez Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2026 15:07:09 +0000 Subject: objtool: Validate disassembler headers in libopcodes probe commit 3f2de814c059 ("objtool: Fix libopcodes linking with static libraries") tested for libopcodes availability by linking a test snippet with a forward declaration of disassemble_init_for_target(). However, testing symbol linkage with an extern declaration only verifies the presence of the library (.so/.a) and bypasses checking for development headers (binutils-dev). On systems where libopcodes is present without development headers installed, the probe succeeds, enabling BUILD_DISAS. Subsequent compilation of objtool then fails: fatal error: 'bfd.h' file not found 113 | #include Additionally, the probe invokes $(HOSTCC) without $(HOSTCFLAGS), ignoring any sysroot or include flags specified for the host compiler. Fix this by including and directly in the test snippet, passing $(HOSTCFLAGS) so host compiler options are respected, and defining PACKAGE="objtool" to satisfy the configuration check in . Fixes: 3f2de814c059 ("objtool: Fix libopcodes linking with static libraries") Fixes: 436326bc525d ("objtool: fix build failure due to missing libopcodes check") Reported-by: Alice Ryhl Assisted-by: Antigravity:Gemini-Next Signed-off-by: Ulises Mendez Martinez Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260904150710.2997558-1-umendez@google.com Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf --- Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 69 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst (limited to 'Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst') diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst b/Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000..13ab13984 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) + +========== +Guidelines +========== + +This document describes the general project guidelines that apply to nova-core +and nova-drm. + +Language +======== + +The Nova project uses the Rust programming language. In this context, all rules +of the Rust for Linux project as documented in +:doc:`../../rust/general-information` apply. Additionally, the following rules +apply. + +- Unless technically necessary otherwise (e.g. uAPI), any driver code is written + in Rust. + +- Unless technically necessary, unsafe Rust code must be avoided. In case of + technical necessity, unsafe code should be isolated in a separate component + providing a safe API for other driver code to use. + +Style +----- + +All rules of the Rust for Linux project as documented in +:doc:`../../rust/coding-guidelines` apply. + +For a submit checklist, please also see the `Rust for Linux Submit checklist +addendum `_. + +Documentation +============= + +The availability of proper documentation is essential in terms of scalability, +accessibility for new contributors and maintainability of a project in general, +but especially for a driver running as complex hardware as Nova is targeting. + +Hence, adding documentation of any kind is very much encouraged by the project. + +Besides that, there are some minimum requirements. + +- Every non-private structure needs at least a brief doc comment explaining the + semantical sense of the structure, as well as potential locking and lifetime + requirements. It is encouraged to have the same minimum documentation for + non-trivial private structures. + +- uAPIs must be fully documented with kernel-doc comments; additionally, the + semantical behavior must be explained including potential special or corner + cases. + +- The APIs connecting the 1st level driver (nova-core) with 2nd level drivers + must be fully documented. This includes doc comments, potential locking and + lifetime requirements, as well as example code if applicable. + +- Abbreviations must be explained when introduced; terminology must be uniquely + defined. + +- Register addresses, layouts, shift values and masks must be defined properly; + unless obvious, the semantical sense must be documented. This only applies if + the author is able to obtain the corresponding information. + +Acceptance Criteria +=================== + +- Patches must only be applied if reviewed by at least one other person on the + mailing list; this also applies for maintainers. -- cgit v1.3.1