common: include new logging functions in linkers files

[grom72]

It also fixes a few issues of call_stacks_analysis.

---

This change is 

[osalyk]

Reviewed 3 of 3 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @janekmi)

[osalyk]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @janekmi)

[janekmi]

🐐

Reviewed 3 of 3 files at r1, 1 of 1 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @grom72)

---

utils/call_stacks_analysis/make_extra.py line 32 at r2 (raw file):

        calls['core_log_va'] = ['core_log_default_function']
        calls['core_log'] = ['core_log_va']
        calls['core_log_set_function'] = ['core_log']

Are you 100% sure cflow does not get it right?

Code quote:

        calls['core_fini'] = ['out_fini', 'core_log_fini', 'last_error_msg_fini']
        calls['common_init'] = ['core_init', 'util_mmap_init']
        calls['common_fini'] = ['util_mmap_fini', 'core_fini']
        calls['Last_errormsg_key_alloc'] = ['_Last_errormsg_key_alloc']
        calls['_Last_errormsg_key_alloc'] = ['os_once', 'os_tls_key_create']
        calls['core_log_va'] = ['core_log_default_function']
        calls['core_log'] = ['core_log_va']
        calls['core_log_set_function'] = ['core_log']

[janekmi]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @grom72)

[grom72]

Reviewable status: 3 of 4 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @janekmi and @osalyk)

---

utils/call_stacks_analysis/make_extra.py line 32 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, janekmi (Jan Michalski) wrote…

Are you 100% sure cflow does not get it right?

No ;)
But it seems that more functions can be removed from here.
Do not ask me "why?"
We can check this section one more time when all PR for 2.1.0 are merged.

[grom72]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r6, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @janekmi)

---

utils/call_stacks_analysis/make_extra.py line 32 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, grom72 (Tomasz Gromadzki) wrote…

No ;)
But it seems that more functions can be removed from here.
Do not ask me "why?"
We can check this section one more time when all PR for 2.1.0 are merged.

Done.

[grom72]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r3.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @janekmi)

[grom72]

Reviewed 2 of 3 files at r1, 1 of 1 files at r2.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @janekmi)

[janekmi]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r6, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 6 unresolved discussions (waiting on @grom72)

---

src/libpmemobj/libpmemobj.link.in line 21 at r6 (raw file):

		pmemobj_log_get_threshold;
		pmemobj_log_set_function;
		pmemobj_log_set_threshold;

Duplicate.

---

utils/call_stacks_analysis/make_extra.py line 25 at r6 (raw file):

        # common
        calls['core_init'] = ['util_init', 'core_log_init', 'out_init']
        calls['core_fini'] = ['out_fini', 'core_log_fini', 'last_error_msg_fini']

1. As far as I can tell, all of it is already in the cflow output.
2. Note common: Clean-up Valgrind usage in the project #5950 leaked a part of this change so you have to rebase.

---

utils/call_stacks_analysis/make_extra.py line 29 at r6 (raw file):

        calls['common_fini'] = ['util_mmap_fini', 'core_fini']
        calls['Last_errormsg_key_alloc'] = ['_Last_errormsg_key_alloc']
        calls['_Last_errormsg_key_alloc'] = ['os_once', 'os_tls_key_create']

No longer exists.

---

utils/call_stacks_analysis/make_extra.py line 30 at r6 (raw file):

        calls['Last_errormsg_key_alloc'] = ['_Last_errormsg_key_alloc']
        calls['_Last_errormsg_key_alloc'] = ['os_once', 'os_tls_key_create']
        calls['core_log_init'] = ['core_log_default_init', 'core_log_set_function']

core_log_init is not missing anything.

---

utils/call_stacks_analysis/make_extra.py line 44 at r6 (raw file):

        return calls

def function_pointers(calls: Calls) -> Calls:

Suggestion:

core_function_pointers

---

utils/call_stacks_analysis/make_extra.py line 431 at r6 (raw file):

def main():
        extra_calls = inlines({})
        extra_calls = function_pointers(extra_calls)

Suggestion:

core_function_pointers

[grom72]

Reviewed 1 of 2 files at r7.
Reviewable status: 3 of 4 files reviewed, 6 unresolved discussions (waiting on @janekmi)

---

src/libpmemobj/libpmemobj.link.in line 21 at r6 (raw file):

Previously, janekmi (Jan Michalski) wrote…

Duplicate.

Done.

---

utils/call_stacks_analysis/make_extra.py line 25 at r6 (raw file):

Previously, janekmi (Jan Michalski) wrote…

1. As far as I can tell, all of it is already in the cflow output.
2. Note common: Clean-up Valgrind usage in the project #5950 leaked a part of this change so you have to rebase.

I propose to solve the inline functions problem in a separate PR.
The existing solution works and provides proper results.

---

utils/call_stacks_analysis/make_extra.py line 29 at r6 (raw file):

Previously, janekmi (Jan Michalski) wrote…

No longer exists.

Done.

---

utils/call_stacks_analysis/make_extra.py line 30 at r6 (raw file):

Previously, janekmi (Jan Michalski) wrote…

core_log_init is not missing anything.

.

---

utils/call_stacks_analysis/make_extra.py line 44 at r6 (raw file):

        return calls

def function_pointers(calls: Calls) -> Calls:

Done.

---

utils/call_stacks_analysis/make_extra.py line 431 at r6 (raw file):

def main():
        extra_calls = inlines({})
        extra_calls = function_pointers(extra_calls)

Done.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 70.13%. Comparing base (d4bd6f2) to head (dd0b61b).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #6066      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   70.12%   70.13%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         133      133              
  Lines       19568    19568              
  Branches     3261     3261              
==========================================
+ Hits        13722    13724       +2     
+ Misses       5846     5844       -2     

[grom72]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r8.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed (commit messages unreviewed), 6 unresolved discussions (waiting on @janekmi)

[grom72]

Reviewed all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 3 of 4 files reviewed, 6 unresolved discussions (waiting on @janekmi)

---

utils/call_stacks_analysis/make_extra.py line 25 at r6 (raw file):

Previously, grom72 (Tomasz Gromadzki) wrote…

I propose to solve the inline functions problem in a separate PR.
The existing solution works and provides proper results.

Done.

[grom72]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r9.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 6 unresolved discussions (waiting on @janekmi)

[janekmi]

Reviewed 1 of 2 files at r7, 1 of 1 files at r9, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 4 unresolved discussions (waiting on @grom72)

---

src/libpmemobj/libpmemobj.link.in line 2 at r9 (raw file):

# SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
# Copyright 2014-2024, Intel Corporation

It seems this file is not under the license check. Funny.

---

utils/call_stacks_analysis/make_extra.py line 427 at r9 (raw file):

        return list(set(callees))

# XXX to be redesign

Please add pmem/pmdk/issues number.

---

utils/call_stacks_analysis/make_extra.py line 430 at r9 (raw file):

# It seems that cflow properly identifies inline functions but in some
# situations does not pars properly funtions that are used inside inline
# funcion:

Suggestion:

# situations does not parse properly functions that are used inside inline
# functions:

---

utils/call_stacks_analysis/make_extra.py line 437 at r9 (raw file):

#                       core_log_init()
#                       out_init()
#               util_mmap_init()

Drop a little bit of unnecessary info.

Suggestion:

# libpmem_init() <__attribute__ ((constructor)) void libpmem_init (void) at .../src/libpmem/libpmem.c:23>:
#       common_init() <inline void common_init (...) at .../src/common/pmemcommon.h:19>:
#               core_init() <inline void core_init (...) at .../src/core/pmemcore.h:24>:
#                       util_init()
#                       core_log_init()
#                       out_init()
#               util_mmap_init()

---

utils/call_stacks_analysis/make_extra.py line 444 at r9 (raw file):

# Acccording to very brife analysis all calles listed on the right hand side
# shall be added to extra_entry_points.txt but they are not required in
# extra_calls.json file

Suggestion:

# It seems all callees of inline function (in the example above: util_init(),
# core_log_init(), out_init()) are not further processed. This causes
# the callees of these functions to be reported as not called (an error reported
# by the make_call_stacks.py script).
# Adding callees of inline functions as entry points allows forcing cflow to
# include these missing calls. Not in their natural place but as artificial
# entry points.
#
# cflow fails to continue:
# function A -> inline function -> inline function's callee -> STOP
#
# forced entry point:
# inline function's callee -> ...

[grom72]

Reviewable status: 3 of 4 files reviewed, 4 unresolved discussions (waiting on @janekmi)

---

utils/call_stacks_analysis/make_extra.py line 427 at r9 (raw file):

Previously, janekmi (Jan Michalski) wrote…

Please add pmem/pmdk/issues number.

Done.

---

utils/call_stacks_analysis/make_extra.py line 430 at r9 (raw file):

# It seems that cflow properly identifies inline functions but in some
# situations does not pars properly funtions that are used inside inline
# funcion:

Done.

---

utils/call_stacks_analysis/make_extra.py line 437 at r9 (raw file):

Previously, janekmi (Jan Michalski) wrote…

Drop a little bit of unnecessary info.

Done

---

utils/call_stacks_analysis/make_extra.py line 444 at r9 (raw file):

# Acccording to very brife analysis all calles listed on the right hand side
# shall be added to extra_entry_points.txt but they are not required in
# extra_calls.json file

Done.

[grom72]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r11.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed (commit messages unreviewed), 4 unresolved discussions (waiting on @janekmi)

[janekmi]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r11, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @grom72)