All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Philip Li <philip.li@intel.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: kbuild-all@lists.01.org, kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Li Zhijian <zhijianx.li@intel.com>,
	Andrei Vagin <avagin@gmail.com>,
	Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [kbuild-all] Re: [PATCH 4/5] arm64: vdso: Add getcpu() implementation
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2020 22:20:53 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200608142053.GA11708@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200608110901.GA4593@sirena.org.uk>

On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 12:09:01PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 03:46:57PM +0800, Li Zhijian wrote:
> > On 6/6/20 12:35 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > > > arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/vgettimeofday.c:9:5: warning: no previous prototype for '__kernel_clock_gettime' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
> > > > 9 | int __kernel_clock_gettime(clockid_t clock,
> > > > |     ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> > > I'm not seeing this here and what we're doing is in line with the
> > > existing idiom as can be seen from the __kernel_clock_gettime() code
> > > flagging the same thing.  Possibly an old/outdated toolchain?
> 
> > Actually, the origin mail contained 4 warnings,  and only one is *new*, as
> > the mail mentioned that
> 
> > > All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>, old ones prefixed by <<):
> 
> > 0Day/LKP had marked the *new* ones prefixed by '>>'
> 
> My point here is that all the warnings, both old and new, look spurious
> and the new warning comes from following the pattern that generates the
> existing warnings.  I'm not seeing any of those warnings locally or in
> other build services like KernelCI.
Thanks Mark for the input. Here the 0-day kernel bot uses W=1 to build which
is mentioned as part of reproduce step.

> reproduce (this is a W=1 build):

And we just add FAQ at https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki/LKP-FAQ#how-is-one-meant-to-act-on-w1-reports-like--wmissing-prototypes
to explain the the missing-prototypes warning, hope this can provide
extra information.

Thanks

> _______________________________________________
> kbuild-all mailing list -- kbuild-all@lists.01.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to kbuild-all-leave@lists.01.org


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Philip Li <philip.li@intel.com>
To: kbuild-all@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] arm64: vdso: Add getcpu() implementation
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2020 22:20:53 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200608142053.GA11708@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200608110901.GA4593@sirena.org.uk>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1713 bytes --]

On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 12:09:01PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 03:46:57PM +0800, Li Zhijian wrote:
> > On 6/6/20 12:35 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > > > arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/vgettimeofday.c:9:5: warning: no previous prototype for '__kernel_clock_gettime' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
> > > > 9 | int __kernel_clock_gettime(clockid_t clock,
> > > > |     ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> > > I'm not seeing this here and what we're doing is in line with the
> > > existing idiom as can be seen from the __kernel_clock_gettime() code
> > > flagging the same thing.  Possibly an old/outdated toolchain?
> 
> > Actually, the origin mail contained 4 warnings,  and only one is *new*, as
> > the mail mentioned that
> 
> > > All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>, old ones prefixed by <<):
> 
> > 0Day/LKP had marked the *new* ones prefixed by '>>'
> 
> My point here is that all the warnings, both old and new, look spurious
> and the new warning comes from following the pattern that generates the
> existing warnings.  I'm not seeing any of those warnings locally or in
> other build services like KernelCI.
Thanks Mark for the input. Here the 0-day kernel bot uses W=1 to build which
is mentioned as part of reproduce step.

> reproduce (this is a W=1 build):

And we just add FAQ at https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki/LKP-FAQ#how-is-one-meant-to-act-on-w1-reports-like--wmissing-prototypes
to explain the the missing-prototypes warning, hope this can provide
extra information.

Thanks

> _______________________________________________
> kbuild-all mailing list -- kbuild-all(a)lists.01.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to kbuild-all-leave(a)lists.01.org

  reply	other threads:[~2020-06-08 14:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-06-05 13:11 [PATCH 0/5] arm64: vdso: getcpu() support Mark Brown
2020-06-05 13:11 ` [PATCH 1/5] arm64: vdso: Provide a define when building the vDSO Mark Brown
2020-06-05 13:11 ` [PATCH 2/5] arm64: vdso: Add per-CPU data Mark Brown
2020-06-05 13:11 ` [PATCH 3/5] arm64: vdso: Initialise the per-CPU vDSO data Mark Brown
2020-06-05 13:11 ` [PATCH 4/5] arm64: vdso: Add getcpu() implementation Mark Brown
2020-06-05 16:11   ` kernel test robot
2020-06-05 16:11     ` kernel test robot
2020-06-05 16:35     ` Mark Brown
2020-06-05 16:35       ` Mark Brown
2020-06-08  7:46       ` [kbuild-all] " Li Zhijian
2020-06-08  7:46         ` Li Zhijian
2020-06-08 11:09         ` [kbuild-all] " Mark Brown
2020-06-08 11:09           ` Mark Brown
2020-06-08 14:20           ` Philip Li [this message]
2020-06-08 14:20             ` Philip Li
2020-06-07  2:04   ` kernel test robot
2020-06-07  2:04     ` kernel test robot
2020-06-05 13:11 ` [PATCH 5/5] selftests: vdso: Support arm64 in getcpu() test Mark Brown
2020-06-17 18:25 ` [PATCH 0/5] arm64: vdso: getcpu() support Mark Brown

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200608142053.GA11708@intel.com \
    --to=philip.li@intel.com \
    --cc=avagin@gmail.com \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=kbuild-all@lists.01.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=lkp@intel.com \
    --cc=vincenzo.frascino@arm.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=zhijianx.li@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.