From: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
To: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
llvm@lists.linux.dev, oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev,
Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>,
x86@kernel.org, "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] mm/treewide: Drop pXd_large()
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 15:56:11 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZeA4m7DK03oHE1Kz@x1n> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202402291233.CVhChP2c-lkp@intel.com>
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 01:17:36PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> >> arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h:1099:19: error: redefinition of 'pud_leaf'
> 1099 | static inline int pud_leaf(pud_t pud)
> | ^
> include/asm-generic/pgtable-nopmd.h:34:19: note: previous definition is here
> 34 | static inline int pud_leaf(pud_t pud) { return 0; }
> | ^
This is CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS=2. IIUC patch 5 didn't do anything wrong,
but when renaming pud_large() it caused this confliction, while in the past
it was a silent confliction between the old pud_leaf() macro and pud_leaf()
defintion, the macro could have silently overwrote the function.
IIUC such pud_leaf() is not needed as we have a global fallback. I'll add
a pre-requisite patch to remove such pXd_leaf() definitions.
--
Peter Xu
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
To: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
llvm@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>,
oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] mm/treewide: Drop pXd_large()
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 15:56:11 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZeA4m7DK03oHE1Kz@x1n> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202402291233.CVhChP2c-lkp@intel.com>
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 01:17:36PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> >> arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h:1099:19: error: redefinition of 'pud_leaf'
> 1099 | static inline int pud_leaf(pud_t pud)
> | ^
> include/asm-generic/pgtable-nopmd.h:34:19: note: previous definition is here
> 34 | static inline int pud_leaf(pud_t pud) { return 0; }
> | ^
This is CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS=2. IIUC patch 5 didn't do anything wrong,
but when renaming pud_large() it caused this confliction, while in the past
it was a silent confliction between the old pud_leaf() macro and pud_leaf()
defintion, the macro could have silently overwrote the function.
IIUC such pud_leaf() is not needed as we have a global fallback. I'll add
a pre-requisite patch to remove such pXd_leaf() definitions.
--
Peter Xu
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-29 7:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-28 8:53 [PATCH 0/5] mm/treewide: Replace pXd_large() with pXd_leaf() peterx
2024-02-28 8:53 ` peterx
2024-02-28 8:53 ` [PATCH 1/5] mm/ppc: Define " peterx
2024-02-28 8:53 ` peterx
2024-02-28 8:53 ` [PATCH 2/5] mm/x86: Replace p4d_large() with p4d_leaf() peterx
2024-02-28 8:53 ` peterx
2024-02-28 8:53 ` [PATCH 3/5] mm/treewide: Replace pmd_large() with pmd_leaf() peterx
2024-02-28 8:53 ` peterx
2024-02-28 8:53 ` [PATCH 4/5] mm/treewide: Replace pud_large() with pud_leaf() peterx
2024-02-28 8:53 ` peterx
2024-02-28 8:53 ` [PATCH 5/5] mm/treewide: Drop pXd_large() peterx
2024-02-28 8:53 ` peterx
2024-02-29 5:17 ` kernel test robot
2024-02-29 5:17 ` kernel test robot
2024-02-29 7:56 ` Peter Xu [this message]
2024-02-29 7:56 ` Peter Xu
2024-02-28 9:50 ` [PATCH 0/5] mm/treewide: Replace pXd_large() with pXd_leaf() Christophe Leroy
2024-02-28 9:50 ` Christophe Leroy
2024-02-28 10:23 ` Peter Xu
2024-02-28 10:23 ` Peter Xu
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=ZeA4m7DK03oHE1Kz@x1n \
--to=peterx@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jgg@nvidia.com \
--cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
--cc=oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=shy828301@gmail.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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.