From: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Cc: Simon Schuster <schuster.simon@siemens-energy.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the vfs-brauner tree
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2025 19:13:25 +0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aMK85cAoXwtta2FR@archie.me> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250910104944.3e420e96@canb.auug.org.au>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 16275 bytes --]
On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 10:49:44AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 12:02:29 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 4 Sep 2025 11:33:34 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > After merging the vfs-brauner tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> > > allmodconfig) failed like this:
> > >
> > > In file included from include/rv/ltl_monitor.h:11,
> > > from kernel/trace/rv/monitors/sleep/sleep.c:23:
> > > include/rv/ltl_monitor.h: In function 'ltl_monitor_init':
> > > include/rv/ltl_monitor.h:75:51: error: passing argument 1 of 'check_trace_callback_type_task_newtask' from incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
> > > 75 | rv_attach_trace_probe(name, task_newtask, handle_task_newtask);
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > | |
> > > | void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long unsigned int)
> > > include/rv/instrumentation.h:18:48: note: in definition of macro 'rv_attach_trace_probe'
> > > 18 | check_trace_callback_type_##tp(rv_handler); \
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~
> > > In file included from kernel/trace/rv/monitors/sleep/sleep.c:3:
> > > include/linux/tracepoint.h:260:49: note: expected 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, u64)' {aka 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long long unsigned int)'} but argument is of type 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long unsigned int)'
> > > 260 | check_trace_callback_type_##name(void (*cb)(data_proto)) \
> > > | ~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > include/linux/tracepoint.h:270:9: note: in expansion of macro '__DECLARE_TRACE_COMMON'
> > > 270 | __DECLARE_TRACE_COMMON(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args), PARAMS(data_proto)) \
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > include/linux/tracepoint.h:481:9: note: in expansion of macro '__DECLARE_TRACE'
> > > 481 | __DECLARE_TRACE(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args), \
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > include/linux/tracepoint.h:619:9: note: in expansion of macro 'DECLARE_TRACE_EVENT'
> > > 619 | DECLARE_TRACE_EVENT(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args))
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > include/trace/events/task.h:9:1: note: in expansion of macro 'TRACE_EVENT'
> > > 9 | TRACE_EVENT(task_newtask,
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~
> > > In file included from include/asm-generic/bug.h:7,
> > > from arch/x86/include/asm/bug.h:103,
> > > from arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h:9,
> > > from arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h:5,
> > > from include/asm-generic/bitops/generic-non-atomic.h:7,
> > > from include/linux/bitops.h:28,
> > > from include/linux/kernel.h:23,
> > > from include/linux/interrupt.h:6,
> > > from include/linux/trace_recursion.h:5,
> > > from include/linux/ftrace.h:10,
> > > from kernel/trace/rv/monitors/sleep/sleep.c:2:
> > > include/rv/ltl_monitor.h:75:51: error: passing argument 1 of 'register_trace_task_newtask' from incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
> > > 75 | rv_attach_trace_probe(name, task_newtask, handle_task_newtask);
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > | |
> > > | void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long unsigned int)
> > > include/linux/once_lite.h:28:41: note: in definition of macro 'DO_ONCE_LITE_IF'
> > > 28 | bool __ret_do_once = !!(condition); \
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~
> > > include/rv/instrumentation.h:19:17: note: in expansion of macro 'WARN_ONCE'
> > > 19 | WARN_ONCE(register_trace_##tp(rv_handler, NULL), \
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~
> > > include/rv/ltl_monitor.h:75:9: note: in expansion of macro 'rv_attach_trace_probe'
> > > 75 | rv_attach_trace_probe(name, task_newtask, handle_task_newtask);
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > include/linux/tracepoint.h:241:38: note: expected 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, u64)' {aka 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long long unsigned int)'} but argument is of type 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long unsigned int)'
> > > 241 | register_trace_##name(void (*probe)(data_proto), void *data) \
> > > | ~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > include/linux/tracepoint.h:270:9: note: in expansion of macro '__DECLARE_TRACE_COMMON'
> > > 270 | __DECLARE_TRACE_COMMON(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args), PARAMS(data_proto)) \
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > include/linux/tracepoint.h:481:9: note: in expansion of macro '__DECLARE_TRACE'
> > > 481 | __DECLARE_TRACE(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args), \
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > include/linux/tracepoint.h:619:9: note: in expansion of macro 'DECLARE_TRACE_EVENT'
> > > 619 | DECLARE_TRACE_EVENT(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args))
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > include/trace/events/task.h:9:1: note: in expansion of macro 'TRACE_EVENT'
> > > 9 | TRACE_EVENT(task_newtask,
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~
> > > include/rv/ltl_monitor.h: In function 'ltl_monitor_destroy':
> > > include/rv/ltl_monitor.h:92:51: error: passing argument 1 of 'unregister_trace_task_newtask' from incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
> > > 92 | rv_detach_trace_probe(name, task_newtask, handle_task_newtask);
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > | |
> > > | void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long unsigned int)
> > > include/rv/instrumentation.h:28:39: note: in definition of macro 'rv_detach_trace_probe'
> > > 28 | unregister_trace_##tp(rv_handler, NULL); \
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~
> > > include/linux/tracepoint.h:254:40: note: expected 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, u64)' {aka 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long long unsigned int)'} but argument is of type 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long unsigned int)'
> > > 254 | unregister_trace_##name(void (*probe)(data_proto), void *data) \
> > > | ~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > include/linux/tracepoint.h:270:9: note: in expansion of macro '__DECLARE_TRACE_COMMON'
> > > 270 | __DECLARE_TRACE_COMMON(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args), PARAMS(data_proto)) \
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > include/linux/tracepoint.h:481:9: note: in expansion of macro '__DECLARE_TRACE'
> > > 481 | __DECLARE_TRACE(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args), \
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > include/linux/tracepoint.h:619:9: note: in expansion of macro 'DECLARE_TRACE_EVENT'
> > > 619 | DECLARE_TRACE_EVENT(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args))
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > include/trace/events/task.h:9:1: note: in expansion of macro 'TRACE_EVENT'
> > > 9 | TRACE_EVENT(task_newtask,
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~
> > > In file included from include/rv/ltl_monitor.h:11,
> > > from kernel/trace/rv/monitors/pagefault/pagefault.c:19:
> > > include/rv/ltl_monitor.h: In function 'ltl_monitor_init':
> > > include/rv/ltl_monitor.h:75:51: error: passing argument 1 of 'check_trace_callback_type_task_newtask' from incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
> > > 75 | rv_attach_trace_probe(name, task_newtask, handle_task_newtask);
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > | |
> > > | void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long unsigned int)
> > > include/rv/instrumentation.h:18:48: note: in definition of macro 'rv_attach_trace_probe'
> > > 18 | check_trace_callback_type_##tp(rv_handler); \
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~
> > > In file included from kernel/trace/rv/monitors/pagefault/pagefault.c:9:
> > > include/linux/tracepoint.h:260:49: note: expected 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, u64)' {aka 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long long unsigned int)'} but argument is of type 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long unsigned int)'
> > > 260 | check_trace_callback_type_##name(void (*cb)(data_proto)) \
> > > | ~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > include/linux/tracepoint.h:270:9: note: in expansion of macro '__DECLARE_TRACE_COMMON'
> > > 270 | __DECLARE_TRACE_COMMON(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args), PARAMS(data_proto)) \
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > include/linux/tracepoint.h:481:9: note: in expansion of macro '__DECLARE_TRACE'
> > > 481 | __DECLARE_TRACE(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args), \
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > include/linux/tracepoint.h:619:9: note: in expansion of macro 'DECLARE_TRACE_EVENT'
> > > 619 | DECLARE_TRACE_EVENT(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args))
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > include/trace/events/task.h:9:1: note: in expansion of macro 'TRACE_EVENT'
> > > 9 | TRACE_EVENT(task_newtask,
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~
> > > In file included from include/asm-generic/bug.h:7,
> > > from arch/x86/include/asm/bug.h:103,
> > > from arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h:9,
> > > from arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h:5,
> > > from include/asm-generic/bitops/generic-non-atomic.h:7,
> > > from include/linux/bitops.h:28,
> > > from include/linux/kernel.h:23,
> > > from include/linux/interrupt.h:6,
> > > from include/linux/trace_recursion.h:5,
> > > from include/linux/ftrace.h:10,
> > > from kernel/trace/rv/monitors/pagefault/pagefault.c:2:
> > > include/rv/ltl_monitor.h:75:51: error: passing argument 1 of 'register_trace_task_newtask' from incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
> > > 75 | rv_attach_trace_probe(name, task_newtask, handle_task_newtask);
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > | |
> > > | void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long unsigned int)
> > > include/linux/once_lite.h:28:41: note: in definition of macro 'DO_ONCE_LITE_IF'
> > > 28 | bool __ret_do_once = !!(condition); \
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~
> > > include/rv/instrumentation.h:19:17: note: in expansion of macro 'WARN_ONCE'
> > > 19 | WARN_ONCE(register_trace_##tp(rv_handler, NULL), \
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~
> > > include/rv/ltl_monitor.h:75:9: note: in expansion of macro 'rv_attach_trace_probe'
> > > 75 | rv_attach_trace_probe(name, task_newtask, handle_task_newtask);
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > include/linux/tracepoint.h:241:38: note: expected 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, u64)' {aka 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long long unsigned int)'} but argument is of type 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long unsigned int)'
> > > 241 | register_trace_##name(void (*probe)(data_proto), void *data) \
> > > | ~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > include/linux/tracepoint.h:270:9: note: in expansion of macro '__DECLARE_TRACE_COMMON'
> > > 270 | __DECLARE_TRACE_COMMON(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args), PARAMS(data_proto)) \
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > include/linux/tracepoint.h:481:9: note: in expansion of macro '__DECLARE_TRACE'
> > > 481 | __DECLARE_TRACE(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args), \
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > include/linux/tracepoint.h:619:9: note: in expansion of macro 'DECLARE_TRACE_EVENT'
> > > 619 | DECLARE_TRACE_EVENT(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args))
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > include/trace/events/task.h:9:1: note: in expansion of macro 'TRACE_EVENT'
> > > 9 | TRACE_EVENT(task_newtask,
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~
> > > include/rv/ltl_monitor.h: In function 'ltl_monitor_destroy':
> > > include/rv/ltl_monitor.h:92:51: error: passing argument 1 of 'unregister_trace_task_newtask' from incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
> > > 92 | rv_detach_trace_probe(name, task_newtask, handle_task_newtask);
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > | |
> > > | void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long unsigned int)
> > > include/rv/instrumentation.h:28:39: note: in definition of macro 'rv_detach_trace_probe'
> > > 28 | unregister_trace_##tp(rv_handler, NULL); \
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~
> > > include/linux/tracepoint.h:254:40: note: expected 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, u64)' {aka 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long long unsigned int)'} but argument is of type 'void (*)(void *, struct task_struct *, long unsigned int)'
> > > 254 | unregister_trace_##name(void (*probe)(data_proto), void *data) \
> > > | ~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > include/linux/tracepoint.h:270:9: note: in expansion of macro '__DECLARE_TRACE_COMMON'
> > > 270 | __DECLARE_TRACE_COMMON(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args), PARAMS(data_proto)) \
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > include/linux/tracepoint.h:481:9: note: in expansion of macro '__DECLARE_TRACE'
> > > 481 | __DECLARE_TRACE(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args), \
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > include/linux/tracepoint.h:619:9: note: in expansion of macro 'DECLARE_TRACE_EVENT'
> > > 619 | DECLARE_TRACE_EVENT(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args))
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > include/trace/events/task.h:9:1: note: in expansion of macro 'TRACE_EVENT'
> > > 9 | TRACE_EVENT(task_newtask,
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > Presumably caused by commit
> > >
> > > edd3cb05c00a ("copy_process: pass clone_flags as u64 across calltree")
> > >
> > > I have used the vfs-brauner tree from next-20250829 for today.
> >
> > I am still seeing this failure.
>
> From today, I have instead just reverted these three commits:
>
> c6ac444ff20c ("nios2: implement architecture-specific portion of sys_clone3")
> bbc46b23af5b ("arch: copy_thread: pass clone_flags as u64")
> edd3cb05c00a ("copy_process: pass clone_flags as u64 across calltree")
I can't help but wondering what Linus would have to react when these commits
made their way to PR to him as-is without any fix...
--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-09-11 12:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 97+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-09-04 1:33 linux-next: build failure after merge of the vfs-brauner tree Stephen Rothwell
2025-09-04 7:44 ` schuster.simon
2025-09-08 2:02 ` Stephen Rothwell
2025-09-10 0:49 ` Stephen Rothwell
2025-09-11 12:13 ` Bagas Sanjaya [this message]
2025-09-15 6:35 ` schuster.simon
2025-09-15 14:11 ` Christian Brauner
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2026-03-25 12:32 Mark Brown
2026-03-26 13:36 ` Christian Brauner
2026-03-27 17:48 ` Mark Brown
2026-03-13 13:00 Mark Brown
2026-03-23 13:56 ` Mark Brown
2026-03-23 15:37 ` Christian Brauner
2026-03-24 13:28 ` Mark Brown
2026-03-26 13:42 ` Christian Brauner
2026-01-27 11:45 Mark Brown
2026-02-02 14:58 ` Mark Brown
2026-02-04 14:31 ` Mark Brown
2026-02-06 12:19 ` Christian Brauner
2026-02-08 20:55 ` Mark Brown
2026-02-09 1:14 ` Al Viro
2026-01-19 14:30 Mark Brown
2026-01-20 6:55 ` kernel test robot
2026-01-20 8:39 ` kernel test robot
2025-11-16 21:43 Stephen Rothwell
2025-11-16 22:23 ` Jeff Layton
2025-11-17 2:16 ` Stephen Rothwell
2025-11-28 0:04 ` Stephen Rothwell
2025-11-28 9:53 ` Christian Brauner
2025-11-05 22:49 Stephen Rothwell
2025-11-28 10:09 ` Christian Brauner
2025-11-05 0:10 Stephen Rothwell
2025-10-30 21:35 Stephen Rothwell
2025-08-31 23:34 Stephen Rothwell
2025-09-01 4:44 ` Onur Özkan
2025-08-17 23:05 Stephen Rothwell
2025-08-19 23:42 ` Stephen Rothwell
2025-08-20 22:54 ` Stephen Rothwell
2025-08-20 23:16 ` Andrew Morton
2025-08-20 23:15 ` Stephen Rothwell
2025-06-18 23:45 Stephen Rothwell
2025-06-19 5:22 ` Lorenzo Stoakes
2025-05-21 10:49 Stephen Rothwell
2025-05-23 10:14 ` Christian Brauner
2025-03-17 23:12 Stephen Rothwell
2025-03-18 15:24 ` Mike Marshall
2025-03-18 15:37 ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-03-18 15:42 ` Mike Marshall
2025-03-17 12:56 Stephen Rothwell
2024-12-11 22:54 Stephen Rothwell
2024-09-02 23:27 Stephen Rothwell
2024-09-03 2:41 ` Aleksa Sarai
2024-09-05 0:58 ` Stephen Rothwell
2024-09-10 0:23 ` Stephen Rothwell
2024-09-10 8:50 ` Christian Brauner
2024-09-10 11:12 ` Stephen Rothwell
2024-09-12 10:23 ` Christian Brauner
2024-09-12 11:24 ` Stephen Rothwell
2024-09-10 14:26 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2024-08-19 23:03 Stephen Rothwell
2024-08-06 0:57 Stephen Rothwell
2024-07-26 0:00 Stephen Rothwell
2024-07-29 23:00 ` Stephen Rothwell
2024-07-30 12:12 ` Christian Brauner
2024-06-27 14:08 Mark Brown
2024-04-04 2:24 Stephen Rothwell
2024-04-04 7:50 ` David Howells
2024-02-18 23:44 Stephen Rothwell
2024-03-12 23:41 ` Stephen Rothwell
2024-03-12 23:45 ` Chuck Lever III
2024-03-13 3:10 ` Stephen Rothwell
2024-02-11 23:52 Stephen Rothwell
2024-02-12 0:36 ` Kent Overstreet
2024-01-23 1:52 Stephen Rothwell
2024-01-24 1:20 ` Stephen Rothwell
2024-01-24 11:13 ` Christian Brauner
2024-01-24 11:35 ` Stephen Rothwell
2024-01-25 16:21 ` Christian Brauner
2023-12-21 0:18 Stephen Rothwell
2023-12-21 1:32 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-12-21 23:41 ` Stephen Rothwell
2023-10-31 1:07 Stephen Rothwell
2023-10-18 23:54 Stephen Rothwell
2023-10-19 9:17 ` Christian Brauner
2023-10-02 22:30 Stephen Rothwell
2023-10-03 13:24 ` Christian Brauner
2023-09-28 0:54 Stephen Rothwell
2023-10-02 11:21 ` Jan Kara
2023-10-02 11:26 ` Jan Kara
2023-10-02 21:24 ` Stephen Rothwell
2023-10-03 13:27 ` Kent Overstreet
2023-10-04 15:46 ` Jan Kara
2023-10-09 14:00 ` Christian Brauner
2023-09-28 0:39 Stephen Rothwell
2023-09-28 14:52 ` Christian Brauner
2023-08-03 0:03 Stephen Rothwell
2023-08-03 10:06 ` Jan Kara
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=aMK85cAoXwtta2FR@archie.me \
--to=bagasdotme@gmail.com \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=schuster.simon@siemens-energy.com \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox