Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] watchdog/hardlockup: Define HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_ARCH

Michael Ellerman
2023-06-21T13:08:41Z

Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> writes:
> The HAVE_ prefix means that the code could be enabled. Add another
> variable for HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_ARCH without this prefix.
> It will be set when it should be built. It will make it compatible
> with the other hardlockup detectors.
>
> The change allows to clean up dependencies of PPC_WATCHDOG
> and HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PERF definitions for powerpc.
>
> As a result HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PERF has the same dependencies
> on arm, x86, powerpc architectures.
>
> Signed-off-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 5 ++---
> include/linux/nmi.h | 2 +-
> lib/Kconfig.debug | 9 +++++++++
> 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Something in this patch is breaking the powerpc g5_defconfig, I don't
immediately see what though.

../arch/powerpc/kernel/stacktrace.c: In function ‘handle_backtrace_ipi’:
../arch/powerpc/kernel/stacktrace.c:171:9: error: implicit declaration of function ‘nmi_cpu_backtrace’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
171 | nmi_cpu_backtrace(regs);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
../arch/powerpc/kernel/stacktrace.c: In function ‘arch_trigger_cpumask_backtrace’:
../arch/powerpc/kernel/stacktrace.c:226:9: error: implicit declaration of function ‘nmi_trigger_cpumask_backtrace’; did you mean ‘arch_trigger_cpumask_backtrace’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
226 | nmi_trigger_cpumask_backtrace(mask, exclude_self, raise_backtrace_ipi);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| arch_trigger_cpumask_backtrace
cc1: all warnings being treated as errors

cheers