From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 770ABC35280 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 06:50:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C3EC215EA for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 06:50:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726311AbfJBGuG (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Oct 2019 02:50:06 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:24254 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725860AbfJBGuG (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Oct 2019 02:50:06 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098417.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x926grlo122754 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 02:50:04 -0400 Received: from e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.101]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2vcn1rk278-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 02 Oct 2019 02:50:04 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 07:50:03 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.198) by e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.135) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Wed, 2 Oct 2019 07:50:00 +0100 Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.59]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x926nw9N50593922 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 2 Oct 2019 06:49:58 GMT Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ADAFA4040; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 06:49:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 557C0A404D; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 06:49:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from osiris (unknown [9.152.212.201]) by d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 06:49:58 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2019 08:49:56 +0200 From: Heiko Carstens To: Jiri Kosina , Vasily Gorbik , Christian Borntraeger , Masahiro Yamada , Linus Torvalds , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Michal Kubecek , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.4-rc1 BUILD FIX] s390: mark __cpacf_query() as __always_inline References: <20191002064605.GA7405@osiris> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191002064605.GA7405@osiris> X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19100206-0020-0000-0000-000003743B4B X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19100206-0021-0000-0000-000021CA3DB6 Message-Id: <20191002064956.GB7405@osiris> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-10-02_04:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=1 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1908290000 definitions=main-1910020062 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 08:46:05AM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 10:08:01PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: > > I am wondering how is it possible that none of the build-testing > > infrastructure we have running against linux-next caught this? Not enough > > non-x86 coverage? > > Well, there is plenty of s390 coverage with respect to daily builds > (also here). It doesn't fail for me with gcc 9.1; so you may either > have a different gcc version or different config options(?) so the > compiler decided to not inline the function. I'll apply this in any > case, since your patch is obviously fine. > > Thanks! Ok, Christian applied this already a couple of minutes earlier ;)