Re: [linux-next:master 3610/5236] io_uring/io_uring.h:229:27: error: implicit declaration of function 'io_cache_alloc'; did you mean 'kmem_cache_alloc'?

[Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>]

On 12/30/24 4:05 PM, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> writes:
> 
>> On 12/26/24 6:13 AM, kernel test robot wrote:
>>> tree:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
>>> head:   8155b4ef3466f0e289e8fcc9e6e62f3f4dceeac2
>>> commit: 694022b01368387cc1ed8485e279dfe27939ee43 [3610/5236] io_uring: Add generic helper to allocate async data
>>> config: x86_64-rhel-9.4 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20241226/202412262106.bjOOaZcE-lkp@intel.com/config)
>>> compiler: gcc-12 (Debian 12.2.0-14) 12.2.0
>>> reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20241226/202412262106.bjOOaZcE-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 <lkp@intel.com>
>>> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202412262106.bjOOaZcE-lkp@intel.com/
>>>
>>> Note: the linux-next/master HEAD 8155b4ef3466f0e289e8fcc9e6e62f3f4dceeac2 builds fine.
>>>       It may have been fixed somewhere.
>>>
>>> All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
>>>
>>>    In file included from io_uring/io_uring.c:82:
>>>    io_uring/io_uring.h: In function 'io_uring_alloc_async_data':
>>>>> io_uring/io_uring.h:229:27: error: implicit declaration of function
>>>>> 'io_cache_alloc'; did you mean 'kmem_cache_alloc'?
>>>>> [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>>>      229 |         req->async_data = io_cache_alloc(cache, GFP_KERNEL, init_once);
>>>          |                           ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>          |                           kmem_cache_alloc
>>>    io_uring/io_uring.h:229:25: warning: assignment to 'void *' from 'int' makes pointer from integer without a cast [-Wint-conversion]
>>>      229 |         req->async_data = io_cache_alloc(cache, GFP_KERNEL, init_once);
>>>          |                         ^
>>>    In file included from io_uring/io_uring.c:104:
>>>    io_uring/alloc_cache.h: At top level:
>>>>> io_uring/alloc_cache.h:33:21: error: conflicting types for
>>>>> 'io_cache_alloc'; have 'void *(struct io_alloc_cache *, gfp_t, void
>>>>> (*)(void *))' {aka 'void *(struct io_alloc_cache *, unsigned int,
>>>>> void (*)(void *))'}
>>>       33 | static inline void *io_cache_alloc(struct io_alloc_cache *cache, gfp_t gfp,
>>>          |                     ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>    io_uring/io_uring.h:229:27: note: previous implicit declaration of 'io_cache_alloc' with type 'int()'
>>>      229 |         req->async_data = io_cache_alloc(cache, GFP_KERNEL, init_once);
>>>          |                           ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>    cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
>>> --
>>>    In file included from io_uring/opdef.c:11:
>>>    io_uring/io_uring.h: In function 'io_uring_alloc_async_data':
>>>>> io_uring/io_uring.h:229:27: error: implicit declaration of function
>>>>> 'io_cache_alloc'; did you mean 'kmem_cache_alloc'?
>>>>> [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>>>      229 |         req->async_data = io_cache_alloc(cache, GFP_KERNEL, init_once);
>>>          |                           ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>          |                           kmem_cache_alloc
>>>    io_uring/io_uring.h:229:25: warning: assignment to 'void *' from 'int' makes pointer from integer without a cast [-Wint-conversion]
>>>      229 |         req->async_data = io_cache_alloc(cache, GFP_KERNEL, init_once);
>>>          |                         ^
>>>    cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
>>>
>>>
>>> vim +229 io_uring/io_uring.h
>>>
>>>    224	
>>>    225	static inline void *io_uring_alloc_async_data(struct io_alloc_cache *cache,
>>>    226						      struct io_kiocb *req,
>>>    227						      void (*init_once)(void *obj))
>>>    228	{
>>>  > 229		req->async_data = io_cache_alloc(cache, GFP_KERNEL, init_once);
>>>    230		if (req->async_data)
>>>    231			req->flags |= REQ_F_ASYNC_DATA;
>>>    232		return req->async_data;
>>>    233	}
>>>    234	
>>
>> Gabriel, you add the alloc_cache.h include 3 patches too late, so biection
>> breaks for the series after this identified commit.
> 
> This is nasty.  What's the best course of action?  Do you want to drop
> the series since it is still in your branch and I can resend with this
> fixed?  Or is it too late since it made into -next?  Sorry for this and
> the other issue. This series was actually less harmless than I expected
> and even though I always do a last minute 'git rebase --exec make'
> before sending, I clearly failed to do it here.

Since it's still a ways off from the merge window, I just rebased from
the offending patch and to the top. So it's all sorted out.

-- 
Jens Axboe