From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev, kbuild-all@lists.01.org,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [pdx86-platform-drivers-x86:review-hans 46/59] kernel/stop_machine.c:638:35: error: call to undeclared function 'cpu_smt_mask'; ISO C99 and later do not support implicit function declarations
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 13:42:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87r14zvuxp.ffs@tglx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ce8e9601-f514-5227-f9f7-87594218f95f@redhat.com>
On Thu, May 12 2022 at 11:53, Hans de Goede wrote:
> On 5/12/22 11:24, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Thu, May 12 2022 at 09:29, kernel test robot wrote:
>>>>> kernel/stop_machine.c:638:35: error: call to undeclared function 'cpu_smt_mask'; ISO C99 and later do not support implicit function declarations [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
>>> const struct cpumask *smt_mask = cpu_smt_mask(cpu);
>>
>> This warning with W=1 is not the worst of the problems.
>>
>> The build will simply fail for CONFIG_SMP=y && CONFIG_SCHED_SMT=n
>> because cpu_smt_mask() cannot be resolved.
>>
>> The other issue is CONFIG_SMP=n. This will fail to build the IFS driver
>> because stop_core_cpuslocked() is not available for SMP=n.
>
> The IFS Kconfig already depends on SMP :
>
> config INTEL_IFS
> tristate "Intel In Field Scan"
> depends on X86 && 64BIT && SMP
> select INTEL_IFS_DEVICE
> help
> Enable ...
>
>
> So I don't think we need the non-SMP implementation inside
> include/linux/stop_machine.h, we only need the #ifdef you
> suggest in kernel/stop_machine.c ?
For the case at hand that's sufficient.
> I think it is best to just squash this into the original
> patch, do you agree ?
Yes.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: kbuild-all@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [pdx86-platform-drivers-x86:review-hans 46/59] kernel/stop_machine.c:638:35: error: call to undeclared function 'cpu_smt_mask'; ISO C99 and later do not support implicit function declarations
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 13:42:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87r14zvuxp.ffs@tglx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ce8e9601-f514-5227-f9f7-87594218f95f@redhat.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1273 bytes --]
On Thu, May 12 2022 at 11:53, Hans de Goede wrote:
> On 5/12/22 11:24, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Thu, May 12 2022 at 09:29, kernel test robot wrote:
>>>>> kernel/stop_machine.c:638:35: error: call to undeclared function 'cpu_smt_mask'; ISO C99 and later do not support implicit function declarations [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
>>> const struct cpumask *smt_mask = cpu_smt_mask(cpu);
>>
>> This warning with W=1 is not the worst of the problems.
>>
>> The build will simply fail for CONFIG_SMP=y && CONFIG_SCHED_SMT=n
>> because cpu_smt_mask() cannot be resolved.
>>
>> The other issue is CONFIG_SMP=n. This will fail to build the IFS driver
>> because stop_core_cpuslocked() is not available for SMP=n.
>
> The IFS Kconfig already depends on SMP :
>
> config INTEL_IFS
> tristate "Intel In Field Scan"
> depends on X86 && 64BIT && SMP
> select INTEL_IFS_DEVICE
> help
> Enable ...
>
>
> So I don't think we need the non-SMP implementation inside
> include/linux/stop_machine.h, we only need the #ifdef you
> suggest in kernel/stop_machine.c ?
For the case at hand that's sufficient.
> I think it is best to just squash this into the original
> patch, do you agree ?
Yes.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-12 11:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-12 1:29 [pdx86-platform-drivers-x86:review-hans 46/59] kernel/stop_machine.c:638:35: error: call to undeclared function 'cpu_smt_mask'; ISO C99 and later do not support implicit function declarations kernel test robot
2022-05-12 9:24 ` Thomas Gleixner
2022-05-12 9:24 ` Thomas Gleixner
2022-05-12 9:53 ` Hans de Goede
2022-05-12 9:53 ` Hans de Goede
2022-05-12 11:42 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2022-05-12 11:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2022-05-12 13:40 ` Hans de Goede
2022-05-12 13:40 ` Hans de Goede
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=87r14zvuxp.ffs@tglx \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hdegoede@redhat.com \
--cc=kbuild-all@lists.01.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tony.luck@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.