From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christian Borntraeger Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the access_once tree Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 12:20:35 +0100 Message-ID: <54882C83.5010803@de.ibm.com> References: <20141210192035.2e5d80ff@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20141210192035.2e5d80ff@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org Am 10.12.2014 um 09:20 schrieb Stephen Rothwell: > Hi Christian, > > After merging the access_once tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc > ppc44x_defconfig) failed like this: > > In file included from /scratch/sfr/next/include/uapi/linux/stddef.h:1:0, > from /scratch/sfr/next/include/linux/stddef.h:4, > from /scratch/sfr/next/include/uapi/linux/posix_types.h:4, > from /scratch/sfr/next/include/uapi/linux/types.h:13, > from /scratch/sfr/next/include/linux/types.h:5, > from /scratch/sfr/next/include/linux/smp.h:10, > from /scratch/sfr/next/include/linux/kernel_stat.h:4, > from /scratch/sfr/next/mm/memory.c:41: > In function '__read_once_size', > inlined from 'handle_pte_fault' at /scratch/sfr/next/mm/memory.c:3192:10, > inlined from '__handle_mm_fault' at /scratch/sfr/next/mm/memory.c:3324:2, > inlined from 'handle_mm_fault' at /scratch/sfr/next/mm/memory.c:3353:6: > /scratch/sfr/next/include/linux/compiler.h:206:3: warning: call to 'data_access_exceeds_word_size' declared with attribute warning: data access exceeds word size and won't be atomic > data_access_exceeds_word_size(); > ^ > mm/built-in.o: In function `handle_mm_fault': > (.text+0x283a0): undefined reference to `data_access_exceeds_word_size' > > I hate dropped the access_once tree again today. hate dropped? typo or bad mood? ;-) I fixed this two-ways 1: a real bug: I did not provide data_access_exceeds_word_size 2: a change in semantics: change the memory.c rework to a barrier as if should be enough Can you retry (I added ppc44x_defconfig to my cross compile test)? Christian Sorry for being such a pain, but the access_once rework will be prone to compile errors