lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: linux-next: build failure after merge of the akpm tree
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 9:57 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Arjun,
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 6:45 PM Arjun Roy <arjunroy@google.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 9:13 AM Arjun Roy <arjunroy@google.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 1:03 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 5:12 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > > > > After merging the akpm tree, today's linux-next build (sparc defconfig)
> > > > > failed like this:
> > > > >
> > > > > In file included from include/linux/list.h:9:0,
> > > > > from include/linux/smp.h:12,
> > > > > from include/linux/kernel_stat.h:5,
> > > > > from mm/memory.c:42:
> > > > > mm/memory.c: In function 'insert_pages':
> > > > > mm/memory.c:1523:41: error: implicit declaration of function 'pte_index'; did you mean 'page_index'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > > > > remaining_pages_total, PTRS_PER_PTE - pte_index(addr));
> > > > > ^
> > > > > include/linux/kernel.h:842:40: note: in definition of macro '__typecheck'
> > > > > (!!(sizeof((typeof(x) *)1 == (typeof(y) *)1)))
> > > > > ^
> > > > > include/linux/kernel.h:866:24: note: in expansion of macro '__safe_cmp'
> > > > > __builtin_choose_expr(__safe_cmp(x, y), \
> > > > > ^~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > include/linux/kernel.h:934:27: note: in expansion of macro '__careful_cmp'
> > > > > #define min_t(type, x, y) __careful_cmp((type)(x), (type)(y), <)
> > > > > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > mm/memory.c:1522:26: note: in expansion of macro 'min_t'
> > > > > pages_to_write_in_pmd = min_t(unsigned long,
> > > > > ^~~~~
> > > >
> > > > Same issue on m68k, as per a report from kisskb.
> > > >
> > > > > Caused by patch
> > > > >
> > > > > "mm/memory.c: add vm_insert_pages()"
> > > > >
> > > > > sparc32 does not implement pte_index at all :-(
> > > >
> > > > Seems like about only half of the architectures do.
> > > >
> > >
> > > :/ I begin to suspect the only sane way to make this work is to have a
> > > per-arch header defined method, returning a bool saying whether
> > > pte_index() is meaningful or not on that arch, and early on in
> > > vm_insert_pages() if that bool returns true, to just call
> > > vm_insert_page() in a loop.
> > >
> >
> > So, here is what I propose: something like the following macro in a
> > per-arch header:
> >
> > #define PTE_INDEX_DEFINED 1 // or 0 if it is not
>
> pte_index is already a #define on architectures where it exists, so
> you can just use that.
>
> > In mm/memory.c, another macro:
> >
> > #ifndef PTE_INDEX_DEFINED
> > #define PTE_INDEX_DEFINED 0
> > #endifndef
>
> No need for the above...
>
> > And inside vm_insert_pages:
> >
> > int vm_insert_pages() {
> >
> > #if PTE_INDEX_DEFINED
>
> ... if you use "#ifdef" here.
>

Sounds good, thanks. I'll cook up a patch and send it along.

-Arjun

> >
> > // The existing method
> >
> > #else
> >
> > for (i=0; i<n; ++i)
> > vm_insert_page(i)
> >
> > #endif
> > }
> >
> > That way:
> > 1. No playing whack-a-mole with different architectures
> > 2. Architecture that knows pte_index is meaningful works can define
> > this explicitly
> > 3. Can remove the sparc patches modifying pte_index that Stephen and I
> > contributed.
> >
> > If that sounds acceptable I can cook a patch.
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
>
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
>
> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
> -- Linus Torvalds

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-27 19:51    [W:0.251 / U:1.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site