Re: mmotm 2020-04-26-00-15 uploaded (mm/madvise.c)

[Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>]

Hi Andrew,

On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 01:50:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 15:48:35 -0700 Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 4/26/20 10:26 AM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > On 4/26/20 12:16 AM, akpm@linux-foundation.org wrote:
> > >> The mm-of-the-moment snapshot 2020-04-26-00-15 has been uploaded to
> > >>
> > >>    http://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/
> > >>
> > >> mmotm-readme.txt says
> > >>
> > >> README for mm-of-the-moment:
> > >>
> > >> http://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/
> > >>
> > >> This is a snapshot of my -mm patch queue.  Uploaded at random hopefully
> > >> more than once a week.
> > >>
> > >> You will need quilt to apply these patches to the latest Linus release (5.x
> > >> or 5.x-rcY).  The series file is in broken-out.tar.gz and is duplicated in
> > >> http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/series
> > >>
> > >> The file broken-out.tar.gz contains two datestamp files: .DATE and
> > >> .DATE-yyyy-mm-dd-hh-mm-ss.  Both contain the string yyyy-mm-dd-hh-mm-ss,
> > >> followed by the base kernel version against which this patch series is to
> > >> be applied.
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > > I'm seeing lots of build failures in mm/madvise.c.
> > > 
> > > Is Minchin's patch only partially applied or is it just missing some pieces?
> > > 
> > > a.  mm/madvise.c needs to #include <linux/uio.h>
> > > 
> > > b.  looks like the sys_process_madvise() prototype in <linux/syscalls.h>
> > > has not been updated:
> > > 
> > > In file included from ../mm/madvise.c:11:0:
> > > ../include/linux/syscalls.h:239:18: error: conflicting types for ‘sys_process_madvise’
> > >   asmlinkage long sys##name(__MAP(x,__SC_DECL,__VA_ARGS__)) \
> > >                   ^
> > > ../include/linux/syscalls.h:225:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘__SYSCALL_DEFINEx’
> > >   __SYSCALL_DEFINEx(x, sname, __VA_ARGS__)
> > >   ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > ../include/linux/syscalls.h:219:36: note: in expansion of macro ‘SYSCALL_DEFINEx’
> > >  #define SYSCALL_DEFINE6(name, ...) SYSCALL_DEFINEx(6, _##name, __VA_ARGS__)
> > >                                     ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > ../mm/madvise.c:1295:1: note: in expansion of macro ‘SYSCALL_DEFINE6’
> > >  SYSCALL_DEFINE6(process_madvise, int, which, pid_t, upid,
> > >  ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > In file included from ../mm/madvise.c:11:0:
> > > ../include/linux/syscalls.h:880:17: note: previous declaration of ‘sys_process_madvise’ was here
> > >  asmlinkage long sys_process_madvise(int which, pid_t pid, unsigned long start,
> > >                  ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > 
> > I had to add 2 small patches to have clean madvise.c builds:
> > 
> 
> hm, not sure why these weren't noticed sooner, thanks.
> 
> This patchset is looking a bit tired now.
> 
> Things to be addressed (might be out of date):
> 
> - http://lkml.kernel.org/r/293bcd25-934f-dd57-3314-bbcf00833e51@redhat.com

It seems to be not related to process_madvise.

> 
> - http://lkml.kernel.org/r/2a767d50-4034-da8c-c40c-280e0dda910e@suse.cz
>   (I did this)

Thanks!

> 
> - http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200310222008.GB72963@google.com

I will send foldable patches to handle comments.

> 
> - issues arising from the review of
>   http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200302193630.68771-8-minchan@kernel.org

Oleksandr, What's the outcome of this issue?
Do we still need to change based on the comment?