From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 07/61] xarray: Add the xa_lock to the radix_tree_root Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 14:22:03 -0700 Message-ID: <20180412212203.GD18364@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20180313132639.17387-1-willy@infradead.org> <20180313132639.17387-8-willy@infradead.org> <20180412211036.GB18364@bombadil.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding :Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date: Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=U7qEjcQDDzpOq49nKog7j5mj7NvH8obFjGXe8MnWq0M=; b=avCIs7eKid0KGG+k9ekpGVl2N2 mldyWWv6axTRtXTuOCs1X23mdO5xfrBRDX1A6o6gWxbtKGsT3ksZ/+aFTMAWZHtwcDbgjr73VNNQm yo306H/R9gWKcgB0oRhMnhM8xUbkIagEGW5wqXQM8j3Wue5vwEWh8VpE+nQCvRPAgMj4QEV/EXmN3 lw4EwOq7NkGqUNsXMqpaab2knumwRWEQJUFcA4rb++RZThHfwWPNuTCvaML8bH+N1Aj+5SHU27rzt TNs9UT5a4aXOQRQnNVOMq1uvu2vopAvg/GcmANk+g07tnate4dNuV5m9iaL57zJ5AElHIN0ZT476t Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" To: Ross Zwisler Cc: Andrew Morton , Matthew Wilcox , LKML , Linux MM , linux-fsdevel , Ryusuke Konishi , linux-nilfs@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 03:16:23PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 02:59:32PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote: > >> This is causing build breakage in the radix tree test suite in the > >> current linux/master: > >> > >> ./linux/../../../../include/linux/idr.h: In function ‘idr_init_base’: > >> ./linux/../../../../include/linux/radix-tree.h:129:2: warning: > >> implicit declaration of function ‘spin_lock_init’; did you mean > >> ‘spinlock_t’? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration] > > > > Argh. That was added two patches later in > > "xarray: Add definition of struct xarray": > > > > diff --git a/tools/include/linux/spinlock.h b/tools/include/linux/spinlock.h > > index b21b586b9854..4ec4d2cbe27a 100644 > > --- a/tools/include/linux/spinlock.h > > +++ b/tools/include/linux/spinlock.h > > @@ -6,8 +6,9 @@ > > #include > > > > #define spinlock_t pthread_mutex_t > > -#define DEFINE_SPINLOCK(x) pthread_mutex_t x = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER; > > +#define DEFINE_SPINLOCK(x) pthread_mutex_t x = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER > > #define __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(x) (pthread_mutex_t)PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER > > +#define spin_lock_init(x) pthread_mutex_init(x, NULL) > > > > #define spin_lock_irqsave(x, f) (void)f, pthread_mutex_lock(x) > > #define spin_unlock_irqrestore(x, f) (void)f, pthread_mutex_unlock(x) > > > > I didn't pick up that it was needed this early on in the patch series. > > Hmmm..I don't know if it's a patch ordering issue, because this > happens with the current linux/master where presumably all the patches > are present? No, Andrew only merged the first 8 or so because of lack of review of the remaining patches. Even though I cc'd people as hard as I could. Including you. :-P You could, for example, review the DAX patches ...