linux-next: percpu/kvm/tip tree build failure

linux-next: percpu/kvm/tip tree build failure

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig) failed like this:

kernel/user-return-notifier.c: In function 'fire_user_return_notifiers':
kernel/user-return-notifier.c:45: error: expected expression before ')' token

Introduced by commit 7c68af6e32c73992bad24107311f3433c89016e2 ("core,
x86: Add user return notifiers") from the tip and kvm trees but revealed
by commit e0fdb0e050eae331046385643618f12452aa7e73 ("percpu: add __percpu
for sparse") from the percpu tree.  Before that percpu tree commit,
"put_cpu_var()" would compile without error (even though it really needs
a parameter).

I have applied the following patch for today.

From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:54:43 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] x86: fix put_cpu_var invocation in user return notifiers code

Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
---
 kernel/user-return-notifier.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/user-return-notifier.c b/kernel/user-return-notifier.c
index 530ccb8..03e2d6f 100644
--- a/kernel/user-return-notifier.c
+++ b/kernel/user-return-notifier.c
@@ -42,5 +42,5 @@ void fire_user_return_notifiers(void)
 	head = &get_cpu_var(return_notifier_list);
 	hlist_for_each_entry_safe(urn, tmp1, tmp2, head, link)
 		urn->on_user_return(urn);
-	put_cpu_var();
+	put_cpu_var(return_notifier_list);
 }
-- 
1.6.5.2


-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

Re: linux-next: percpu/kvm/tip tree build failure

[Avi Kivity]

On 11/02/2009 07:17 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig) failed like this:
>
> kernel/user-return-notifier.c: In function 'fire_user_return_notifiers':
> kernel/user-return-notifier.c:45: error: expected expression before ')' token
>
> Introduced by commit 7c68af6e32c73992bad24107311f3433c89016e2 ("core,
> x86: Add user return notifiers") from the tip and kvm trees but revealed
> by commit e0fdb0e050eae331046385643618f12452aa7e73 ("percpu: add __percpu
> for sparse") from the percpu tree.  Before that percpu tree commit,
> "put_cpu_var()" would compile without error (even though it really needs
> a parameter).
>
> I have applied the following patch for today.
>    

Ingo, can you queue this on x86/entry?

-- 

error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

Re: linux-next: percpu/kvm/tip tree build failure

[Ingo Molnar]

* Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 11/02/2009 07:17 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig) failed like this:
>>
>> kernel/user-return-notifier.c: In function 'fire_user_return_notifiers':
>> kernel/user-return-notifier.c:45: error: expected expression before ')' token
>>
>> Introduced by commit 7c68af6e32c73992bad24107311f3433c89016e2 ("core,
>> x86: Add user return notifiers") from the tip and kvm trees but revealed
>> by commit e0fdb0e050eae331046385643618f12452aa7e73 ("percpu: add __percpu
>> for sparse") from the percpu tree.  Before that percpu tree commit,
>> "put_cpu_var()" would compile without error (even though it really needs
>> a parameter).
>>
>> I have applied the following patch for today.
>>    
>
> Ingo, can you queue this on x86/entry?

Already done, tested and pushed out.

	Ingo

Re: linux-next: percpu/kvm/tip tree build failure

[Avi Kivity]

On 11/02/2009 12:07 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> Ingo, can you queue this on x86/entry?
>>      
> Already done, tested and pushed out.
>    

Usually there is an ack from tip-bot?

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

[tip:x86/entry] x86: Fix user return notifier put_cpu_var() invocation

[tip-bot for Stephen Rothwell]

Commit-ID:  3c912b6edaac56cb451e7571c95c15cbb6bd0c81
Gitweb:     http://git.kernel.org/tip/3c912b6edaac56cb451e7571c95c15cbb6bd0c81
Author:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
AuthorDate: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 16:17:22 +1100
Committer:  Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
CommitDate: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 07:58:59 +0100

x86: Fix user return notifier put_cpu_var() invocation

Today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig) failed like this:

  kernel/user-return-notifier.c: In function
  'fire_user_return_notifiers': kernel/user-return-notifier.c:45:
  error: expected expression before ')' token

Introduced by commit 7c68af6e32c73992bad24107311f3433c89016e2
("core, x86: Add user return notifiers") from the tip and kvm trees
but revealed by commit e0fdb0e050eae331046385643618f12452aa7e73
("percpu: add __percpu for sparse") from the percpu tree.

Before that percpu tree commit, "put_cpu_var()" would compile
without error (even though it really needs a parameter).

Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
LKML-Reference: <20091102161722.eea4358d.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
---
 kernel/user-return-notifier.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/user-return-notifier.c b/kernel/user-return-notifier.c
index 530ccb8..03e2d6f 100644
--- a/kernel/user-return-notifier.c
+++ b/kernel/user-return-notifier.c
@@ -42,5 +42,5 @@ void fire_user_return_notifiers(void)
 	head = &get_cpu_var(return_notifier_list);
 	hlist_for_each_entry_safe(urn, tmp1, tmp2, head, link)
 		urn->on_user_return(urn);
-	put_cpu_var();
+	put_cpu_var(return_notifier_list);
 }

Re: linux-next: percpu/kvm/tip tree build failure

[Ingo Molnar]

* Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 11/02/2009 12:07 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> Ingo, can you queue this on x86/entry?
>>>      
>> Already done, tested and pushed out.
>
> Usually there is an ack from tip-bot?

Yeah, the final, committed form of the patch (with small edits done in 
99% of the cases) gets sent to the discussion thread on lkml and can be 
reviewed (and double checked) there.

<plug> We use the tip-bot mechanism to:

 - increase transparency (every commit gets posted into the lkml thread 
   it originates from),

 - avoid patch-bombing/spamming lkml every week/month with new patches,

 - it also makes the patch postings much more on-topic and easier to
   ignore for those who are not interested in a discussion,

 - it can also be used to fine-tune any workflow details - the specific
   timings can be seen in the discussion, missed or incorrectly queued 
   patches can be identified,

 - new discussions/bugreports can be started based on that commit
   notification, on lkml.

Developers and maintainers involved in the process absolutely love it as 
it visibly increases workflow reliability and transparency and increases 
the information density on lkml - you might want to consider something 
similar too, for kvm.git ;-)

</plug>

Should be in your mbox any minute.

	Ingo