Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the akpm-current tree

Anshuman Khandual
2019-01-08T04:54:18Z

On 01/08/2019 07:41 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> After merging the akpm-current tree, today's linux-next build (native
> perf) failed like this:
>
> bench/numa.c: In function 'bind_to_node':
> bench/numa.c:301:21: error: 'NUMA_NO_NODE' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'NUMA_NUM_NODES'?
> if (target_node == NUMA_NO_NODE) {
> ^~~~~~~~~~~~
> NUMA_NUM_NODES
> bench/numa.c:301:21: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
> bench/numa.c: In function 'bind_to_memnode':
> bench/numa.c:342:14: error: 'NUMA_NO_NODE' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'NUMA_NUM_NODES'?
> if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE)
> ^~~~~~~~~~~~
> NUMA_NUM_NODES
> bench/numa.c: In function 'init_thread_data':
> bench/numa.c:1366:19: error: 'NUMA_NO_NODE' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'NUMA_NUM_NODES'?
> td->bind_node = NUMA_NO_NODE;
> ^~~~~~~~~~~~
> NUMA_NUM_NODES
>
> Caused by commit
>
> 3856193d8452 ("tools/: replace open encodings for NUMA_NO_NODE")
>
> [BTW, I did not write that patch, just added fixes last time]

Yes I had consolidated parts from the original patch into the build failure fix.

> [BTW 2, there are lots of cc's that probably no longer apply since this
> was split form the previous patch]

Hmm. I had sent it as a series. So the second patch just carried over all the CC
for the first one as well.

>
> I have applied the following fix patch:
>
> From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 13:08:32 +1100
> Subject: [PATCH] tools/: fix for replace open encodings for NUMA_NO_NODE
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> ---
> tools/perf/bench/numa.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/bench/numa.c b/tools/perf/bench/numa.c
> index e0ad5f1de226..98ad783efc69 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/bench/numa.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/bench/numa.c
> @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
> #include <sys/types.h>
> #include <linux/kernel.h>
> #include <linux/time64.h>
> +#include <linux/numa.h>
>
> #include <numa.h>

Just curious why the NUMA_NO_NODE definition did not get resolved from the local
numa.h which had the same ones copied over from linux/numa.h but anyways the fix
looks okay.