From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.11]) (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 1FAE23AA1B4; Fri, 6 Mar 2026 18:12:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772820751; cv=none; b=gSlol8Q3Q6QG2LQBh60rtHbIeWvcR1ldew4D20jatpK4GY7iWq3ti5A3aOm28g77zkOUIlmB1gsjwS4/aQyHqa/QY1sFbRT1hB0ter50Ug1h/87smBBGdEc+CpT+jQtStW6VKdPb5efdBCt2E3C5F8VtaZBoV3vL4uiIKSeyYN8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772820751; c=relaxed/simple; bh=zVhYjOw+I6u92TO095x5XFtS85cPfEqbRrthDoFLnNc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=CBQ1kYhS39GBWh9A4XnPQvVkTnR52S0B1ytBsuteWjzr+ZMceTyUjzw/wCpEJFrv+RlKtj3X7+SQskx80nrTl5b6G5Mj99RU+tI4FKk44s7jZ+iFaE+9QXmXm6HYx3MSJ/GyCOU9wld2g/42lyt8JgmwQvlT23kzjCAMdOvoCrw= 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=QGZJlx3A; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.11 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="QGZJlx3A" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1772820749; x=1804356749; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=zVhYjOw+I6u92TO095x5XFtS85cPfEqbRrthDoFLnNc=; b=QGZJlx3AfzgSMk4Men3jLx1cVocsk82LEiGQynJoM8iGSyrO0HzFiL5g Y4eo0sX2D0uU9fngLKWqg8Yp6po667oZN4e0PEeeSljsvk/UyASr0RZbV Vki/u34u+lsJ3pvyyBUtle53yZ35DdjIVTEtavcQuRB0KtqWmQ9OwjCM6 A/3ak7oCchDdlM9SgwANHgP0wMNSa+2praN2CZf/0uZRuOuct0zFc/cTl UoDWkQfsloYNq2nojIszmflsgnrwfG3dBtySFxScyc5UjKBj3m63ckOX+ rucOvZ1Gg/VXWltwuAdhWAOloXOM81mXCoRqmziCWkTa9zS7zfLsE5bVZ w==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: Sg1YIKRXRXCgYlbgPc+QmA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: xS2aimKJQPOB8Ksm2Vjl3w== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11721"; a="84260309" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.23,105,1770624000"; d="scan'208";a="84260309" Received: from orviesa001.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.141]) by orvoesa103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Mar 2026 10:12:29 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: eXx3q8ylRZ2iHBQfejXGSQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: sPHjagL1SsWEUOD35cTfwQ== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.23,105,1770624000"; d="scan'208";a="257005763" Received: from lkp-server01.sh.intel.com (HELO 058beb05654c) ([10.239.97.150]) by orviesa001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 Mar 2026 10:12:27 -0800 Received: from kbuild by 058beb05654c with local (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1vyZey-000000001Bd-471q; Fri, 06 Mar 2026 18:12:24 +0000 Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2026 02:12:16 +0800 From: kernel test robot To: Yafang Shao Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev, oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] locking: add mutex_lock_nospin() Message-ID: <202603070239.YyGTDfDj-lkp@intel.com> References: <20260304074650.58165-2-laoar.shao@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: llvm@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: arm-allnoconfig (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20260307/202603070239.YyGTDfDj-lkp@intel.com/config) compiler: clang version 23.0.0git (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project c32caeec8158d634bb71ab8911a6031248b9fc47) reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20260307/202603070239.YyGTDfDj-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/202603070239.YyGTDfDj-lkp@intel.com/ All error/warnings (new ones prefixed by >>): >> kernel/locking/mutex.c:299:3: error: call to undeclared function '__mutex_lock_nospin'; ISO C99 and later do not support implicit function declarations [-Wimplicit-function-declaration] 299 | __mutex_lock_nospin(lock); | ^ kernel/locking/mutex.c:299:3: note: did you mean 'mutex_lock_nospin'? kernel/locking/mutex.c:294:14: note: 'mutex_lock_nospin' declared here 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); | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | mutex_lock_nospin >> kernel/locking/mutex.c:630:48: error: too many arguments to function call, expected 3, have 4 630 | mutex_optimistic_spin(lock, ww_ctx, NULL, nospin)) { | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ^~~~~~ kernel/locking/mutex.c:532:1: note: 'mutex_optimistic_spin' declared here 532 | mutex_optimistic_spin(struct mutex *lock, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx, | ^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 533 | struct mutex_waiter *waiter) | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ kernel/locking/mutex.c:731:53: error: too many arguments to function call, expected 3, have 4 731 | if (mutex_optimistic_spin(lock, ww_ctx, &waiter, nospin)) | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ^~~~~~ kernel/locking/mutex.c:532:1: note: 'mutex_optimistic_spin' declared here 532 | mutex_optimistic_spin(struct mutex *lock, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx, | ^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 533 | struct mutex_waiter *waiter) | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> kernel/locking/mutex.c:792:1: warning: no previous prototype for function '__mutex_lock_nospin' [-Wmissing-prototypes] 792 | __mutex_lock_nospin(struct mutex *lock, unsigned int state, unsigned int subclass, | ^ kernel/locking/mutex.c:791:8: note: declare 'static' if the function is not intended to be used outside of this translation unit 791 | static int __sched | ^ 1 warning and 3 errors generated. vim +/__mutex_lock_nospin +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