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 56FAD31A80D; Thu, 6 Nov 2025 14:33:30 +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=1762439610; cv=none; b=VigLvWoFi4D36LBM+zt7Cx/aPLeMs+rAzq/zoSYg3ItO2Or5w4QruSAP7w928pGd3UA5lnO1m15RURX4wkdOfiPYMTJV0hhO6tMD38/E7ZHTeDlBx85v2652JkAtJfasOCj9J8n+FbibTztx2RQBj5xhGlP2yruwPhOn1XdHAF4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762439610; c=relaxed/simple; bh=0wSHlM09iOhzFBw498LhHwkOc0mjGo5Tmr0ceb2EkkQ=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:References:To:Cc:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=M0sBXDZIySaDFCdZs3udkBdBfidqW5z3VVw6xE8rGEoL3M0Xf1YS6YP6a9KT2t2q0+KHwfVCyccDBWpzTzpBuA38EW60EZccbnudiCTxG4ErcQH/qQAgfcQdZndiDeztH1+hZq+7Q87Vr2qo5eruTHD/YemNUMawQI83xIEYe9c= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=U8u3gMiq; 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="U8u3gMiq" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 69460C116D0; Thu, 6 Nov 2025 14:33:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1762439610; bh=0wSHlM09iOhzFBw498LhHwkOc0mjGo5Tmr0ceb2EkkQ=; h=Date:Subject:References:To:Cc:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=U8u3gMiqvXcE1IVfbLOWbXBxDliYkBclkIbFGDvc5MONPdchzOilNcljsqoyDv0hR JpFKc4yim6QUNcoczIQvUPbIWNt+2xmDspxvTRy6VnWMDFYLZt78gifNCiKPg6D3tD 3sSCfERfI6JAJMfb+SH6Zz0IpQpQYIsRC1eQWcd6IXmcVH+VT3ni9D1iiU5dvLoXJe Pk+ImE01klQuuCURJ0G2ToPr30+BpZ4Iew2RCXkDLWLDzL4buaPHWSawgTAdfIeF3j iBbysaiXiwJNxHSAG2qTwxpa3rm5COFBZ2HD0mB1XfvQhz5lRJPAt7rk9QKydaw5v7 GYqlKi1oT/1XQ== Message-ID: <37bc1037-37d8-4168-afc9-da8e2d1dd26b@kernel.org> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2025 09:33:28 -0500 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Fwd: Compile Error fs/nfsd/nfs4state.o - clamp() low limit slotsize greater than high limit total_avail/scale_factor References: Content-Language: en-US To: "stable@vger.kernel.org" , Andrew Morton , David Laight Cc: Linux NFS Mailing List , Linux List Kernel Mailing , speedcracker@hotmail.com From: Chuck Lever Organization: kernel.org In-Reply-To: X-Forwarded-Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit FYI https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=220745 -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: Compile Error fs/nfsd/nfs4state.o - clamp() low limit slotsize greater than high limit total_avail/scale_factor Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2025 07:29:25 -0500 From: Jeff Layton To: Mike-SPC via Bugspray Bot , cel@kernel.org, neilb@ownmail.net, trondmy@kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, anna@kernel.org, neilb@brown.name On Thu, 2025-11-06 at 11:30 +0000, Mike-SPC via Bugspray Bot wrote: > 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)? > I'd let all 3 know, and I'd include the author of the patches that you suspect are the problem. They'll probably want to revise the one that's a problem. Cheers, -- Jeff Layton