From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.9]) (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 1B967346E55 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2026 18:24:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.9 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772821477; cv=none; b=WbOymF9bRBAGDstiY454OUJB2wuf+h3VR9I8/SXmIt0QRc3706wR3cYkQf1iAosFXDd1j8JtbQW78LX/tjnTS3fjl1IEVRqFk5UgcYaJsrdzJMOVeFkC8cjxCvrZuzirGw39LFjZb5+Gs290VfKmrgBjc+8kXPteIHAx0RB4Pvc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772821477; c=relaxed/simple; bh=GoKtrVOFPv9jOjedgeYI6gu5CaJo4PKx6t+qqYdGtLY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Lef/5Vt+GpLQUD6NX0cn5yisQiyQQv5nhfEJlMP7M4QHjoyTrS3gF5OiAZCm2drwExnJLUDvRAojWggqR0N+DX+4muPDCju4aOp2qeAYiGEvfrbs8pe7bF4SZeSwQHZ6VmIazd1Ge91fCMj+dEMtnFR3Lxp78eZidGbHi9xvwKo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=SpzbKBj3; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.9 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="SpzbKBj3" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1772821475; x=1804357475; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=GoKtrVOFPv9jOjedgeYI6gu5CaJo4PKx6t+qqYdGtLY=; b=SpzbKBj3fAnx87dfD0jRpeCp/2NiZOGLO5d7yz0czMJ4eeKUUXu1Rc2U HV9ICdlVcotOPPV32hKLxWA4Y8F3TtYdrrMDvx1Aqmu9RZtnRtTel4XRs 6xmVVXBrcEKlVSawMUJcR8g/8FqMLqH0IRidQ8oYc/Sk8FbJm0OM5hDKz Dji0ZIeZASkCQ4RnMceIz4eXHjPq5rQ1box4HvMqO3NraS5NpKez6xSH6 Ych/otSoqNkOU+GsMoHXjmcTYVG+y5FUROSNklfU8cO0USKR9pH2C9QDB ufDX2egjRUaeT+mlLNWtoPVxD0fNwhqnwCkVKQs203/yP9fP0jl7BIUz5 Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: Y5SC/9PSTTSQhYlVFqW2NA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: ICjf0wNwQ5S2gxjPdqS5HQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11721"; a="96551040" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.23,105,1770624000"; d="scan'208";a="96551040" Received: from orviesa005.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.145]) by orvoesa101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Mar 2026 10:24:35 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: t5V8EEZZSnG6W2oBNVPUaA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 23eXXWNXTuyq+CjM8tHWvQ== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.23,105,1770624000"; d="scan'208";a="224055389" Received: from lkp-server01.sh.intel.com (HELO 058beb05654c) ([10.239.97.150]) by orviesa005.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 Mar 2026 10:24:34 -0800 Received: from kbuild by 058beb05654c with local (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1vyZqh-000000001Cb-1RqN; Fri, 06 Mar 2026 18:24:31 +0000 Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2026 02:24:18 +0800 From: kernel test robot To: Yafang Shao Cc: oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] locking: add mutex_lock_nospin() Message-ID: <202603070229.G9hHE2az-lkp@intel.com> References: <20260304074650.58165-2-laoar.shao@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260304074650.58165-2-laoar.shao@gmail.com> Hi Yafang, [This is a private test report for your RFC patch.] kernel test robot noticed the following build errors: [auto build test ERROR on tip/locking/core] [also build test ERROR on linus/master v7.0-rc2 next-20260305] [cannot apply to trace/for-next] [If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note. And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information] url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Yafang-Shao/locking-add-mutex_lock_nospin/20260304-155633 base: tip/locking/core patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260304074650.58165-2-laoar.shao%40gmail.com patch subject: [RFC PATCH 1/2] locking: add mutex_lock_nospin() config: alpha-allnoconfig (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20260307/202603070229.G9hHE2az-lkp@intel.com/config) compiler: alpha-linux-gcc (GCC) 15.2.0 reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20260307/202603070229.G9hHE2az-lkp@intel.com/reproduce) If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags | Reported-by: kernel test robot | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202603070229.G9hHE2az-lkp@intel.com/ All error/warnings (new ones prefixed by >>): kernel/locking/mutex.c: In function 'mutex_lock_nospin': >> kernel/locking/mutex.c:299:17: error: implicit declaration of function '__mutex_lock_nospin'; did you mean 'mutex_lock_nospin'? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration] 299 | __mutex_lock_nospin(lock); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | mutex_lock_nospin kernel/locking/mutex.c: In function '__mutex_lock_common': >> kernel/locking/mutex.c:630:13: error: too many arguments to function 'mutex_optimistic_spin'; expected 3, have 4 630 | mutex_optimistic_spin(lock, ww_ctx, NULL, nospin)) { | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ kernel/locking/mutex.c:532:1: note: declared here 532 | mutex_optimistic_spin(struct mutex *lock, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx, | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ kernel/locking/mutex.c:731:29: error: too many arguments to function 'mutex_optimistic_spin'; expected 3, have 4 731 | if (mutex_optimistic_spin(lock, ww_ctx, &waiter, nospin)) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ kernel/locking/mutex.c:532:1: note: declared here 532 | mutex_optimistic_spin(struct mutex *lock, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx, | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ kernel/locking/mutex.c: At top level: >> kernel/locking/mutex.c:792:1: error: static declaration of '__mutex_lock_nospin' follows non-static declaration 792 | __mutex_lock_nospin(struct mutex *lock, unsigned int state, unsigned int subclass, | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ kernel/locking/mutex.c:299:17: note: previous implicit declaration of '__mutex_lock_nospin' with type 'int()' 299 | __mutex_lock_nospin(lock); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> kernel/locking/mutex.c:792:1: warning: '__mutex_lock_nospin' defined but not used [-Wunused-function] 792 | __mutex_lock_nospin(struct mutex *lock, unsigned int state, unsigned int subclass, | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ vim +299 kernel/locking/mutex.c 293 294 void __sched mutex_lock_nospin(struct mutex *lock) 295 { 296 might_sleep(); 297 298 if (!__mutex_trylock_fast(lock)) > 299 __mutex_lock_nospin(lock); 300 } 301 #endif 302 -- 0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki