From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ej1-f46.google.com (mail-ej1-f46.google.com [209.85.218.46]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3210364CA for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2024 08:28:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="OnkKTu8n" Received: by mail-ej1-f46.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a2b4aba3a8aso36021466b.3 for ; Tue, 09 Jan 2024 00:28:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1704788917; x=1705393717; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:sender :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=12NVFfjg6W1Zi5ETWmGcRAxyHlBNBpcW/SmCJ7rMyZU=; b=OnkKTu8n9LL9OHSXgNKZ4jtSuOJwJVa3ck1wZGyDmNKYHJDZLxtRDuGkwIfgfvbnjy ELXwALawZJLrfVc8NjUSHmD/sToyKeFXu1O581es978LX4R12W0/huVbDT/S9iG11MWf hS7N5St7sDKwwIH96z3FpvA0cBldxPWyT3m/mE1qWOotTsnxIGRIXoqRuDFfGtiQoj79 AELvuS+vRpBjemjPkxNwXW+jCrWfcfQyof5BJFn2MX/JF4bhQbuHiP6hzvLfoskQPLj1 Xc+L7nZY8BUMJsTkjB4yUCT8fmKvxclDjJ3Q+ox1QdkAsBhc/SqN6rnrTA635uRv2vfW VvOg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1704788917; x=1705393717; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:sender :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=12NVFfjg6W1Zi5ETWmGcRAxyHlBNBpcW/SmCJ7rMyZU=; b=cNtBVpj16z8g0FTBiN3SxVqYOKnisZrdgTMeIGM1U7dSEQFl1oXBjdnZoTVmMkMfD4 Tsj5lOF7aEU/AaOpUYp5IlW5hUCJnMu+BK8AZvvxe8D6+eStiTMqJ6t+xyMexVybIIGG X+N+5SEfVS6FY+QoNjXmQEePjZJTzK8DfJTbsIAX9gbXe4Y4nI1ssjyhiIsciKnuzCrQ uMY+UXcAQeu2gGOqmitAiOLERm6EsgLAfWz75KQj7JXWQcpYtMcbkoFeYgJiWePLxFAj Cw0ibkE6XY39URpxUOsZDp84QbSLVi1y3cTF/S9zBQvFhit+tUeEbQSYcpTjxf3PoRCd 8Juw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzjmKOt50iaZHJW6W4u7fpMT6SlIP69/1VmnAsD3SXg2YF96DdT gXfbicgxGjOP1LcQ8Bn9+ub+O8dK3Hg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEtdNDiWhR6Lu2MoNrRV+FFwaUB7OCLNoQuEFe+Y3ttvz8IzAsXcdQRFDZ2Qh+f5KFc9714Pg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:c1a:b0:a28:d0c5:535 with SMTP id ga26-20020a1709070c1a00b00a28d0c50535mr429135ejc.110.1704788916640; Tue, 09 Jan 2024 00:28:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from gmail.com (1F2EF3FE.nat.pool.telekom.hu. [31.46.243.254]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a23-20020a17090640d700b00a2a9dddb308sm753383ejk.121.2024.01.09.00.28.35 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 09 Jan 2024 00:28:36 -0800 (PST) Sender: Ingo Molnar Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2024 09:28:33 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Linus Torvalds Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, the arch/x86 maintainers , Peter Zijlstra , Dave Hansen Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/mm changes for v6.8 Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: * Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 at 03:35, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > - Robustify pfn_to_kaddr() > > > > - Improve the __untagged_addr() code: RIP-relative addresses are fine these days > > and generate better code, and update misleading/outdated comments as well. > > This does not even compile for me. > > arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess_64.h: In function ‘__untagged_addr’: > arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess_64.h:25:28: error: implicit declaration > of function ‘__my_cpu_var’; did you mean ‘put_cpu_var’? > [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > > WTH? > > Maybe this has worked in your tree by mistake because there was some > branch dependency that just happened to work out because you had > merged things in a different order. > > But that would very much not be ok regardless. Those branches should > be tested independently, and clearly they were not. Sorry about that and agreed. Indeed the build failure was hidden by another branch, and while I did test-build and test-boot the x86/mm branch before sending it out, but my test config didn't have CONFIG_ADDRESS_MASKING=y ... which ... masked the build failure. The bots that do per-tree testing didn't catch this either. I've now sorted it out in our trees, will send the new x86/mm in a few days. Thanks, Ingo