From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22A2E2EFD8F for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2025 11:30:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762428635; cv=none; b=vAfGldquuxQM9N+xTr5FHojXrE7HiOojQgV0FK86mew7JlvThzuzJqRgN3CbW9sBpZRa7Ywf2RQmjLLZme4uO4uw5VikGtWp82oV1S+eieMSJ4+HOJJORXxReXU+uxkv2UpLTqyf+EAtOZNQBfwfhuufF67iRedz0XS+Eq+ARC0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762428635; c=relaxed/simple; bh=zfY0UTV58hLF/qI2sJ/3FuiK3vIruODsTsKvCxLjKXI=; h=From:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:To:Message-ID:In-Reply-To: References:Subject; b=dszsNnA/68D0zEseNWOLr4YNR6a6qPpFBMQtl2BeXQFI25YIDPEVlegmVTPTu/k7gCSVsr6QyBCVkH79RwDe13jIj2vCxHvnKpNgJG8SnmM7BNiTKX442vEFWOjU2ZwJW9Ev1lri5tN99yCEIbLUhNQtt9KSg2Arf0gIZFykzOY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=lCb84ppd; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="lCb84ppd" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 969E1C4CEF7; Thu, 6 Nov 2025 11:30:34 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1762428634; bh=zfY0UTV58hLF/qI2sJ/3FuiK3vIruODsTsKvCxLjKXI=; h=From:Date:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=lCb84ppdKHsaG4wVZa4VYlJo9pr/DHm64f9J/eXP1k3WnF0sn/A9TVLxeyqlFCDbl dXcPPhhnQ7TwO7WCEl7IYkHMl5ciqHs+vbBZhUr8oly4LKrUN+4kguN9F3AqtDKLzt CDbP+b/SjgIrtyYi2Tcd8sdueI19NrfxZsxdMHFqgCLnvfaQz0bDQbxovzKLoaNEHj cIat9r4Vdsrmotf3pEi5VQY02TF52m/Z3WYi6SKZSlHSuVntEtluPq7bcotwlVTjKn mOep6sXA+rsb6POeU/VePZbE9il5huprEXrsJrU7YNJno6ySR7Fm3FOLyycsCkxEx2 uEQhGKKwJSsAw== Received: from [10.30.226.235] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by aws-us-west-2-korg-oddjob-rhel9-1.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B229739B167B; Thu, 6 Nov 2025 11:30:08 +0000 (UTC) From: Mike-SPC via Bugspray Bot Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2025 11:30:10 +0000 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: cel@kernel.org, jlayton@kernel.org, neilb@ownmail.net, trondmy@kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, anna@kernel.org, neilb@brown.name Message-ID: <20251106-b220745c6-0a65ef0b5697@bugzilla.kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: Subject: Re: Compile Error fs/nfsd/nfs4state.o - clamp() low limit slotsize greater than high limit total_avail/scale_factor X-Bugzilla-Product: File System X-Bugzilla-Component: NFSD X-Mailer: bugspray 0.1-dev Mike-SPC writes via Kernel.org Bugzilla: (In reply to Bugspray Bot from comment #5) > Chuck Lever replies to comment #4: > > On 11/5/25 7:25 AM, Mike-SPC via Bugspray Bot wrote: > > Mike-SPC writes via Kernel.org Bugzilla: > > > >> Have you found a 6.1.y kernel for which the build doesn't fail? > > > > Yes. Compiling Version 6.1.155 works without problems. > > Versions >= 6.1.156 aren't. > > My analysis yesterday suggests that, because the nfs4state.c code hasn't > changed, it's probably something elsewhere that introduced this problem. > As we can't reproduce the issue, can you use "git bisect" between > v6.1.155 and v6.1.156 to find the culprit commit? > > (via https://msgid.link/ab235dbe-7949-4208-a21a-2cdd50347152@kernel.org) Yes, your analysis is right (thanks for it). After some investigation, the issue appears to be caused by changes introduced in include/linux/minmax.h. I verified this by replacing minmax.h in 6.1.156 with the version from 6.1.155, and the kernel then compiles successfully. The relevant section in the 6.1.156 changelog (https://cdn.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v6.x/ChangeLog-6.1.156) shows several modifications to minmax.h (notably around __clamp_once() and the use of BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(statically_true(ulo > uhi), ...)), which seem to trigger a compile-time assertion when building NFSD. Replacing the updated header with the previous one resolves the issue, so this appears to be a regression introduced by the new clamp() logic. Could you please advise who is the right person or mailing list to report this issue to (minmax.h maintainers, kernel core, or stable tree)? Regards, Michael View: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=220745#c6 You can reply to this message to join the discussion. -- Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot. Kernel.org Bugzilla (bugspray 0.1-dev)