* [linux-next:master 12265/12944] arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h:904:16: error: implicit declaration of function 'pud_leaf'; did you mean 'pmd_leaf'?
@ 2024-03-10 8:10 kernel test robot
2024-03-11 16:19 ` Peter Xu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: kernel test robot @ 2024-03-10 8:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Xu
Cc: oe-kbuild-all, Linux Memory Management List, Andrew Morton,
Jason Gunthorpe, Mike Rapoport (IBM)
tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
head: 8ffc8b1bbd505e27e2c8439d326b6059c906c9dd
commit: 924bd6a8c96767a05323d575bdefd664631dce73 [12265/12944] mm/x86: drop two unnecessary pud_leaf() definitions
config: arm64-randconfig-r031-20230409 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240310/202403101607.a42gaLOS-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: aarch64-linux-gcc (GCC) 13.2.0
reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240310/202403101607.a42gaLOS-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/202403101607.a42gaLOS-lkp@intel.com/
All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
In file included from include/linux/pgtable.h:6,
from arch/arm64/include/asm/io.h:12,
from include/linux/io.h:13,
from include/acpi/acpi_io.h:5,
from include/linux/acpi.h:39,
from include/acpi/apei.h:9,
from include/acpi/ghes.h:5,
from include/linux/arm_sdei.h:8,
from arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c:10:
arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h: In function 'pud_user_accessible_page':
>> arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h:904:16: error: implicit declaration of function 'pud_leaf'; did you mean 'pmd_leaf'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
904 | return pud_leaf(pud) && (pud_user(pud) || pud_user_exec(pud));
| ^~~~~~~~
| pmd_leaf
cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
make[3]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:116: arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.s] Error 1
make[3]: Target 'prepare' not remade because of errors.
make[2]: *** [Makefile:1199: prepare0] Error 2
make[2]: Target 'prepare' not remade because of errors.
make[1]: *** [Makefile:240: __sub-make] Error 2
make[1]: Target 'prepare' not remade because of errors.
make: *** [Makefile:240: __sub-make] Error 2
make: Target 'prepare' not remade because of errors.
vim +904 arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
ed928a3402d8a2 Tong Tiangen 2022-05-17 901
ed928a3402d8a2 Tong Tiangen 2022-05-17 902 static inline bool pud_user_accessible_page(pud_t pud)
ed928a3402d8a2 Tong Tiangen 2022-05-17 903 {
730a11f982e61a Liu Shixin 2022-11-22 @904 return pud_leaf(pud) && (pud_user(pud) || pud_user_exec(pud));
ed928a3402d8a2 Tong Tiangen 2022-05-17 905 }
ed928a3402d8a2 Tong Tiangen 2022-05-17 906 #endif
ed928a3402d8a2 Tong Tiangen 2022-05-17 907
:::::: The code at line 904 was first introduced by commit
:::::: 730a11f982e61aaef758ab552dfb7c30de79e99b arm64/mm: add pud_user_exec() check in pud_user_accessible_page()
:::::: TO: Liu Shixin <liushixin2@huawei.com>
:::::: CC: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
--
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [linux-next:master 12265/12944] arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h:904:16: error: implicit declaration of function 'pud_leaf'; did you mean 'pmd_leaf'? 2024-03-10 8:10 [linux-next:master 12265/12944] arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h:904:16: error: implicit declaration of function 'pud_leaf'; did you mean 'pmd_leaf'? kernel test robot @ 2024-03-11 16:19 ` Peter Xu 2024-03-13 19:06 ` Andrew Morton 2024-03-14 9:09 ` Yujie Liu 0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Peter Xu @ 2024-03-11 16:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: kernel test robot Cc: oe-kbuild-all, Linux Memory Management List, Andrew Morton, Jason Gunthorpe, Mike Rapoport (IBM) On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 04:10:37PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote: > tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master > head: 8ffc8b1bbd505e27e2c8439d326b6059c906c9dd > commit: 924bd6a8c96767a05323d575bdefd664631dce73 [12265/12944] mm/x86: drop two unnecessary pud_leaf() definitions > config: arm64-randconfig-r031-20230409 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240310/202403101607.a42gaLOS-lkp@intel.com/config) > compiler: aarch64-linux-gcc (GCC) 13.2.0 > reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240310/202403101607.a42gaLOS-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/202403101607.a42gaLOS-lkp@intel.com/ > > All errors (new ones prefixed by >>): > > In file included from include/linux/pgtable.h:6, > from arch/arm64/include/asm/io.h:12, > from include/linux/io.h:13, > from include/acpi/acpi_io.h:5, > from include/linux/acpi.h:39, > from include/acpi/apei.h:9, > from include/acpi/ghes.h:5, > from include/linux/arm_sdei.h:8, > from arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c:10: > arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h: In function 'pud_user_accessible_page': > >> arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h:904:16: error: implicit declaration of function 'pud_leaf'; did you mean 'pmd_leaf'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > 904 | return pud_leaf(pud) && (pud_user(pud) || pud_user_exec(pud)); > | ^~~~~~~~ > | pmd_leaf > cc1: some warnings being treated as errors > make[3]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:116: arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.s] Error 1 > make[3]: Target 'prepare' not remade because of errors. > make[2]: *** [Makefile:1199: prepare0] Error 2 > make[2]: Target 'prepare' not remade because of errors. > make[1]: *** [Makefile:240: __sub-make] Error 2 > make[1]: Target 'prepare' not remade because of errors. > make: *** [Makefile:240: __sub-make] Error 2 > make: Target 'prepare' not remade because of errors. > > > vim +904 arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h > > ed928a3402d8a2 Tong Tiangen 2022-05-17 901 > ed928a3402d8a2 Tong Tiangen 2022-05-17 902 static inline bool pud_user_accessible_page(pud_t pud) > ed928a3402d8a2 Tong Tiangen 2022-05-17 903 { > 730a11f982e61a Liu Shixin 2022-11-22 @904 return pud_leaf(pud) && (pud_user(pud) || pud_user_exec(pud)); > ed928a3402d8a2 Tong Tiangen 2022-05-17 905 } > ed928a3402d8a2 Tong Tiangen 2022-05-17 906 #endif > ed928a3402d8a2 Tong Tiangen 2022-05-17 907 > > :::::: The code at line 904 was first introduced by commit > :::::: 730a11f982e61aaef758ab552dfb7c30de79e99b arm64/mm: add pud_user_exec() check in pud_user_accessible_page() > > :::::: TO: Liu Shixin <liushixin2@huawei.com> > :::::: CC: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> > > -- > 0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service > https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki > There's another possibly relevant report for riscv: https://lore.kernel.org/r/202403090900.OwPqmRuI-lkp@intel.com I think I messed up the nopmd use case. Since this commit already landed mm-stable, I assume there's no way I provide a fixup. I attached a formal patch below, but I don't know how to test it myself, and I'm not 100% confident. Before I post a formal patch, can anyone let me know how I can kickoff the test bot to test the patch (or help me do the kickoff)? Thanks, ======8<======= From acc5598c7af0b7c9a486a49b8c562bb351e8d35b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 12:10:45 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] mm: Recover pud_leaf() definitions in nopmd case This reverts one change in commit 924bd6a8c96767a05323d575bdefd664631dce73. One issue with that is it broke nopmd builds for at least both arm64 and riscv (CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS=2). The other issue is it was overlooked that it's a common change rather than x86 specific (relevant to the commit message of the commit). Normally there's no need for empty definition of pXd_leaf() because of the fallback functions, however this logic may not apply to pgtable-nopmd.h, because that's a header that can even be used by arch *pgtable.h headers, which can use the *_leaf() definitions _before_ the fallback functions are defined. Leave it there to pass PGTABLE_LEVELS=2 builds. Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202403090900.OwPqmRuI-lkp@intel.com/ Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202403101607.a42gaLOS-lkp@intel.com/ Fixes: 924bd6a8c967 ("mm/x86: drop two unnecessary pud_leaf() definitions") Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> --- include/asm-generic/pgtable-nopmd.h | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/include/asm-generic/pgtable-nopmd.h b/include/asm-generic/pgtable-nopmd.h index fa27e16bbe1b..8ffd64e7a24c 100644 --- a/include/asm-generic/pgtable-nopmd.h +++ b/include/asm-generic/pgtable-nopmd.h @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ static inline int pud_none(pud_t pud) { return 0; } static inline int pud_bad(pud_t pud) { return 0; } static inline int pud_present(pud_t pud) { return 1; } static inline int pud_user(pud_t pud) { return 0; } +static inline int pud_leaf(pud_t pud) { return 0; } static inline void pud_clear(pud_t *pud) { } #define pmd_ERROR(pmd) (pud_ERROR((pmd).pud)) -- 2.44.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-next:master 12265/12944] arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h:904:16: error: implicit declaration of function 'pud_leaf'; did you mean 'pmd_leaf'? 2024-03-11 16:19 ` Peter Xu @ 2024-03-13 19:06 ` Andrew Morton 2024-03-13 19:59 ` Peter Xu 2024-03-14 9:09 ` Yujie Liu 1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Andrew Morton @ 2024-03-13 19:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Peter Xu Cc: kernel test robot, oe-kbuild-all, Linux Memory Management List, Jason Gunthorpe, Mike Rapoport (IBM) > > There's another possibly relevant report for riscv: > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/202403090900.OwPqmRuI-lkp@intel.com > > I think I messed up the nopmd use case. Since this commit already landed > mm-stable, I assume there's no way I provide a fixup. > > I attached a formal patch below, but I don't know how to test it myself, What I do: Grab https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/files/bin/x86_64/13.2.0/x86_64-gcc-13.2.0-nolibc-aarch64-linux.tar.gz untar that into /opt/crosstool And my crufty old script does, partly, WHAT="$*" ... [ $ARCH = arm64 ] && CT=gcc-13.2.0-nolibc && XARCH=aarch64-linux ... PATH=$PATH:/opt/crosstool/$CT/$XARCH/bin export PATH export CROSS_COMPILE=/opt/crosstool/$CT/$XARCH/bin/$XARCH- export CC="/opt/crosstool/$CT/$XARCH/bin/$XARCH-gcc" J=$(grep "^processor" /proc/cpuinfo | wc -l) J=$(expr $J \* 2) nice -20 make -j$J CC="$CC" $WHAT 2>/tmp/log-$ARCH setenv ARCH arm64 crufty-old-script vmlinux modules > and I'm not 100% confident. Before I post a formal patch, can anyone let > me know how I can kickoff the test bot to test the patch (or help me do the > kickoff)? Worked for me, thanks. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-next:master 12265/12944] arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h:904:16: error: implicit declaration of function 'pud_leaf'; did you mean 'pmd_leaf'? 2024-03-13 19:06 ` Andrew Morton @ 2024-03-13 19:59 ` Peter Xu 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Peter Xu @ 2024-03-13 19:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Morton Cc: kernel test robot, oe-kbuild-all, Linux Memory Management List, Jason Gunthorpe, Mike Rapoport (IBM) On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 12:06:22PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > There's another possibly relevant report for riscv: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/202403090900.OwPqmRuI-lkp@intel.com > > > > I think I messed up the nopmd use case. Since this commit already landed > > mm-stable, I assume there's no way I provide a fixup. > > > > I attached a formal patch below, but I don't know how to test it myself, > > What I do: > > Grab https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/files/bin/x86_64/13.2.0/x86_64-gcc-13.2.0-nolibc-aarch64-linux.tar.gz > > untar that into /opt/crosstool > > And my crufty old script does, partly, > > WHAT="$*" > > ... > [ $ARCH = arm64 ] && CT=gcc-13.2.0-nolibc && XARCH=aarch64-linux > ... > > PATH=$PATH:/opt/crosstool/$CT/$XARCH/bin export PATH > export CROSS_COMPILE=/opt/crosstool/$CT/$XARCH/bin/$XARCH- > export CC="/opt/crosstool/$CT/$XARCH/bin/$XARCH-gcc" > J=$(grep "^processor" /proc/cpuinfo | wc -l) > J=$(expr $J \* 2) > nice -20 make -j$J CC="$CC" $WHAT 2>/tmp/log-$ARCH > > setenv ARCH arm64 > crufty-old-script vmlinux modules I'll keep these notes. > > > and I'm not 100% confident. Before I post a formal patch, can anyone let > > me know how I can kickoff the test bot to test the patch (or help me do the > > kickoff)? > > Worked for me, thanks. I will try to do better next time.. Thanks a lot for the help, Andrew! -- Peter Xu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-next:master 12265/12944] arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h:904:16: error: implicit declaration of function 'pud_leaf'; did you mean 'pmd_leaf'? 2024-03-11 16:19 ` Peter Xu 2024-03-13 19:06 ` Andrew Morton @ 2024-03-14 9:09 ` Yujie Liu 2024-03-14 14:10 ` Peter Xu 1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Yujie Liu @ 2024-03-14 9:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Peter Xu Cc: kernel test robot, oe-kbuild-all, Linux Memory Management List, Andrew Morton, Jason Gunthorpe, Mike Rapoport (IBM) Hi Peter, On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 12:19:32PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote: > On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 04:10:37PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote: > > tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master > > head: 8ffc8b1bbd505e27e2c8439d326b6059c906c9dd > > commit: 924bd6a8c96767a05323d575bdefd664631dce73 [12265/12944] mm/x86: drop two unnecessary pud_leaf() definitions > > config: arm64-randconfig-r031-20230409 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240310/202403101607.a42gaLOS-lkp@intel.com/config) > > compiler: aarch64-linux-gcc (GCC) 13.2.0 > > reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240310/202403101607.a42gaLOS-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/202403101607.a42gaLOS-lkp@intel.com/ > > > > All errors (new ones prefixed by >>): > > > > In file included from include/linux/pgtable.h:6, > > from arch/arm64/include/asm/io.h:12, > > from include/linux/io.h:13, > > from include/acpi/acpi_io.h:5, > > from include/linux/acpi.h:39, > > from include/acpi/apei.h:9, > > from include/acpi/ghes.h:5, > > from include/linux/arm_sdei.h:8, > > from arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c:10: > > arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h: In function 'pud_user_accessible_page': > > >> arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h:904:16: error: implicit declaration of function 'pud_leaf'; did you mean 'pmd_leaf'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > > 904 | return pud_leaf(pud) && (pud_user(pud) || pud_user_exec(pud)); > > | ^~~~~~~~ > > | pmd_leaf > > cc1: some warnings being treated as errors > > make[3]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:116: arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.s] Error 1 > > make[3]: Target 'prepare' not remade because of errors. > > make[2]: *** [Makefile:1199: prepare0] Error 2 > > make[2]: Target 'prepare' not remade because of errors. > > make[1]: *** [Makefile:240: __sub-make] Error 2 > > make[1]: Target 'prepare' not remade because of errors. > > make: *** [Makefile:240: __sub-make] Error 2 > > make: Target 'prepare' not remade because of errors. > > > > > > vim +904 arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h > > > > ed928a3402d8a2 Tong Tiangen 2022-05-17 901 > > ed928a3402d8a2 Tong Tiangen 2022-05-17 902 static inline bool pud_user_accessible_page(pud_t pud) > > ed928a3402d8a2 Tong Tiangen 2022-05-17 903 { > > 730a11f982e61a Liu Shixin 2022-11-22 @904 return pud_leaf(pud) && (pud_user(pud) || pud_user_exec(pud)); > > ed928a3402d8a2 Tong Tiangen 2022-05-17 905 } > > ed928a3402d8a2 Tong Tiangen 2022-05-17 906 #endif > > ed928a3402d8a2 Tong Tiangen 2022-05-17 907 > > > > There's another possibly relevant report for riscv: > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/202403090900.OwPqmRuI-lkp@intel.com > > I think I messed up the nopmd use case. Since this commit already landed > mm-stable, I assume there's no way I provide a fixup. > > I attached a formal patch below, but I don't know how to test it myself, > and I'm not 100% confident. Before I post a formal patch, can anyone let > me know how I can kickoff the test bot to test the patch (or help me do the > kickoff)? It is recommended to firstly follow the "reproduce" link in the report to see if the issue can be reproduced. reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240310/202403101607.a42gaLOS-lkp@intel.com/reproduce) Then please apply the fix patch and rerun the build command to see if the issue is gone. The kernel test robot sends reports when catching any new issues, but the bot is not yet able to test whether a patch can fix a previously reported issue. Thanks, Yujie > > Thanks, > > ======8<======= > From acc5598c7af0b7c9a486a49b8c562bb351e8d35b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> > Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 12:10:45 -0400 > Subject: [PATCH] mm: Recover pud_leaf() definitions in nopmd case > > This reverts one change in commit 924bd6a8c96767a05323d575bdefd664631dce73. > > One issue with that is it broke nopmd builds for at least both arm64 and > riscv (CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS=2). The other issue is it was overlooked that > it's a common change rather than x86 specific (relevant to the commit > message of the commit). > > Normally there's no need for empty definition of pXd_leaf() because of the > fallback functions, however this logic may not apply to pgtable-nopmd.h, > because that's a header that can even be used by arch *pgtable.h headers, > which can use the *_leaf() definitions _before_ the fallback functions are > defined. Leave it there to pass PGTABLE_LEVELS=2 builds. > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202403090900.OwPqmRuI-lkp@intel.com/ > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202403101607.a42gaLOS-lkp@intel.com/ > Fixes: 924bd6a8c967 ("mm/x86: drop two unnecessary pud_leaf() definitions") > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> > --- > include/asm-generic/pgtable-nopmd.h | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/include/asm-generic/pgtable-nopmd.h b/include/asm-generic/pgtable-nopmd.h > index fa27e16bbe1b..8ffd64e7a24c 100644 > --- a/include/asm-generic/pgtable-nopmd.h > +++ b/include/asm-generic/pgtable-nopmd.h > @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ static inline int pud_none(pud_t pud) { return 0; } > static inline int pud_bad(pud_t pud) { return 0; } > static inline int pud_present(pud_t pud) { return 1; } > static inline int pud_user(pud_t pud) { return 0; } > +static inline int pud_leaf(pud_t pud) { return 0; } > static inline void pud_clear(pud_t *pud) { } > #define pmd_ERROR(pmd) (pud_ERROR((pmd).pud)) > > -- > 2.44.0 > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-next:master 12265/12944] arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h:904:16: error: implicit declaration of function 'pud_leaf'; did you mean 'pmd_leaf'? 2024-03-14 9:09 ` Yujie Liu @ 2024-03-14 14:10 ` Peter Xu 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Peter Xu @ 2024-03-14 14:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Yujie Liu Cc: kernel test robot, oe-kbuild-all, Linux Memory Management List, Andrew Morton, Jason Gunthorpe, Mike Rapoport (IBM) On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 05:09:12PM +0800, Yujie Liu wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 12:19:32PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 04:10:37PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote: > > > tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master > > > head: 8ffc8b1bbd505e27e2c8439d326b6059c906c9dd > > > commit: 924bd6a8c96767a05323d575bdefd664631dce73 [12265/12944] mm/x86: drop two unnecessary pud_leaf() definitions > > > config: arm64-randconfig-r031-20230409 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240310/202403101607.a42gaLOS-lkp@intel.com/config) > > > compiler: aarch64-linux-gcc (GCC) 13.2.0 > > > reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240310/202403101607.a42gaLOS-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/202403101607.a42gaLOS-lkp@intel.com/ > > > > > > All errors (new ones prefixed by >>): > > > > > > In file included from include/linux/pgtable.h:6, > > > from arch/arm64/include/asm/io.h:12, > > > from include/linux/io.h:13, > > > from include/acpi/acpi_io.h:5, > > > from include/linux/acpi.h:39, > > > from include/acpi/apei.h:9, > > > from include/acpi/ghes.h:5, > > > from include/linux/arm_sdei.h:8, > > > from arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c:10: > > > arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h: In function 'pud_user_accessible_page': > > > >> arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h:904:16: error: implicit declaration of function 'pud_leaf'; did you mean 'pmd_leaf'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > > > 904 | return pud_leaf(pud) && (pud_user(pud) || pud_user_exec(pud)); > > > | ^~~~~~~~ > > > | pmd_leaf > > > cc1: some warnings being treated as errors > > > make[3]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:116: arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.s] Error 1 > > > make[3]: Target 'prepare' not remade because of errors. > > > make[2]: *** [Makefile:1199: prepare0] Error 2 > > > make[2]: Target 'prepare' not remade because of errors. > > > make[1]: *** [Makefile:240: __sub-make] Error 2 > > > make[1]: Target 'prepare' not remade because of errors. > > > make: *** [Makefile:240: __sub-make] Error 2 > > > make: Target 'prepare' not remade because of errors. > > > > > > > > > vim +904 arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h > > > > > > ed928a3402d8a2 Tong Tiangen 2022-05-17 901 > > > ed928a3402d8a2 Tong Tiangen 2022-05-17 902 static inline bool pud_user_accessible_page(pud_t pud) > > > ed928a3402d8a2 Tong Tiangen 2022-05-17 903 { > > > 730a11f982e61a Liu Shixin 2022-11-22 @904 return pud_leaf(pud) && (pud_user(pud) || pud_user_exec(pud)); > > > ed928a3402d8a2 Tong Tiangen 2022-05-17 905 } > > > ed928a3402d8a2 Tong Tiangen 2022-05-17 906 #endif > > > ed928a3402d8a2 Tong Tiangen 2022-05-17 907 > > > > > > > There's another possibly relevant report for riscv: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/202403090900.OwPqmRuI-lkp@intel.com > > > > I think I messed up the nopmd use case. Since this commit already landed > > mm-stable, I assume there's no way I provide a fixup. > > > > I attached a formal patch below, but I don't know how to test it myself, > > and I'm not 100% confident. Before I post a formal patch, can anyone let > > me know how I can kickoff the test bot to test the patch (or help me do the > > kickoff)? > > It is recommended to firstly follow the "reproduce" link in the report > to see if the issue can be reproduced. > > reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240310/202403101607.a42gaLOS-lkp@intel.com/reproduce) > > Then please apply the fix patch and rerun the build command to see if > the issue is gone. > > The kernel test robot sends reports when catching any new issues, but > the bot is not yet able to test whether a patch can fix a previously > reported issue. Yujie, I see, thanks for the information! -- Peter Xu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-03-14 14:10 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2024-03-10 8:10 [linux-next:master 12265/12944] arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h:904:16: error: implicit declaration of function 'pud_leaf'; did you mean 'pmd_leaf'? kernel test robot 2024-03-11 16:19 ` Peter Xu 2024-03-13 19:06 ` Andrew Morton 2024-03-13 19:59 ` Peter Xu 2024-03-14 9:09 ` Yujie Liu 2024-03-14 14:10 ` Peter Xu
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.