Re: next build: 143 builds: 1 failed, 142 passed, 1 error, 22 warnings (next-20160801)

Re: next build: 143 builds: 1 failed, 142 passed, 1 error, 22 warnings (next-20160801)

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 10:49:26 PM CEST kernelci. org bot wrote:
> next build: 143 builds: 1 failed, 142 passed, 1 error, 22 warnings (next-20160801)
> 
> Full Build Summary: https://kernelci.org/build/next/kernel/next-20160801/
> 
> Tree: next
> Branch: local/master
> Git Describe: next-20160801
> Git Commit: c24c1308a5b274bbd90db927cb18efddc95340c7
> Git URL: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git
> Built: 3 unique architectures
> 
> Build Failure Detected:
> 
> arm:    gcc version 5.3.1 20160113 (Linaro GCC 5.3-2016.02)
> 
>     rpc_defconfig: FAIL

I have verified that Linaro GCC 5.3-2016.05 is fixed, only Linaro GCC
5.3-2016.02 and earlier have this problem, please upgrade if possible

> Errors and Warnings Detected:
> 
> arm64:    gcc version 5.2.1 20151005 (Linaro GCC 5.2-2015.11-2)
> 
>     tinyconfig: 2 warnings

I now have a patch for it, just need to figure out who will
merge it.

> 
> Warnings:
>     drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_fintek.c:34:0: warning: "IRQ_MODE" redefined

As commented in another thread, my patch is waiting to be picked up by
Greg, and has been in that state for a while.

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> allmodconfig (arm64) — PASS, 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 section mismatches
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> allmodconfig (x86) — PASS, 0 errors, 5 warnings, 0 section mismatches
> 
> Warnings:
>     lib/test_hash.c:224:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32" is not defined [-Wundef]
>     lib/test_hash.c:229:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32" is not defined [-Wundef]
>     lib/test_hash.c:234:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64" is not defined [-Wundef]
>     lib/test_hash.c:146:2: warning: missing braces around initializer [-Wmissing-braces]
>     lib/test_hash.c:146:2: warning: (near initialization for 'hash_or[0]') [-Wmissing-braces]

Upgrading to gcc-4.9 will fix avoid that, and a couple of workarounds have
been discussed before, but I don't know why none of them got merged.

George, how about this version:

commit 9b3cb7d0777a81522b799b0362ea0864ab7de6e0
Author: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date:   Tue May 31 10:27:08 2016 +0200

    hash: fix gcc-4 build warnings in test_hash.c
    
    The newly added lib/test_hash.c file builds fine with gcc-5 or newer,
    but causes some annoying warnings witih gcc-4.9 and older:
    
    lib/test_hash.c: In function ‘test_hash_init’:
    lib/test_hash.c:146:2: error: missing braces around initializer [-Werror=missing-braces]
    lib/test_hash.c:146:2: error: (near initialization for ‘hash_or[0]’) [-Werror=missing-braces]
    lib/test_hash.c:224:7: error: "HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32" is not defined [-Werror=undef]
    lib/test_hash.c:229:7: error: "HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32" is not defined [-Werror=undef]
    lib/test_hash.c:234:7: error: "HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64" is not defined [-Werror=undef]
    
    This adds the braces and extra #ifdef checks for the macros to shut up those
    warnings.
    
    Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
    Cc: George Spelvin <linux@sciencehorizons.net>

diff --git a/lib/test_hash.c b/lib/test_hash.c
index 66c5fc8351e8..91a1dfa788d7 100644
--- a/lib/test_hash.c
+++ b/lib/test_hash.c
@@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ static int __init
 test_hash_init(void)
 {
 	char buf[SIZE+1];
-	u32 string_or = 0, hash_or[2][33] = { 0 };
+	u32 string_or = 0, hash_or[2][33] = { { 0 } };
 	unsigned tests = 0;
 	unsigned long long h64 = 0;
 	int i, j;
@@ -221,17 +221,17 @@ test_hash_init(void)
 	/* Issue notices about skipped tests. */
 #ifndef HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32
 	pr_info("__hash_32() has no arch implementation to test.");
-#elif HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 != 1
+#elif defined(HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32) && HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 != 1
 	pr_info("__hash_32() is arch-specific; not compared to generic.");
 #endif
 #ifndef HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32
 	pr_info("hash_32() has no arch implementation to test.");
-#elif HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32 != 1
+#elif defined(HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32) && HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32 != 1
 	pr_info("hash_32() is arch-specific; not compared to generic.");
 #endif
 #ifndef HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64
 	pr_info("hash_64() has no arch implementation to test.");
-#elif HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64 != 1
+#elif defined(HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64) && HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64 != 1
 	pr_info("hash_64() is arch-specific; not compared to generic.");
 #endif


> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> aspeed_g4_defconfig (arm) — PASS, 0 errors, 1 warning, 0 section mismatches
> 
> Warnings:
>     arch/arm/configs/aspeed_g4_defconfig:61:warning: symbol value '1' invalid for PRINTK_TIME
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> aspeed_g5_defconfig (arm) — PASS, 0 errors, 1 warning, 0 section mismatches
> 
> Warnings:
>     arch/arm/configs/aspeed_g5_defconfig:62:warning: symbol value '1' invalid for PRINTK_TIME

This was caused by a commit I did to prepare for a patch turning the 'bool'
symbol into an integer symbol. That patch is no longer in -next and
we should revert my patch.


	Arnd

Re: next build: 143 builds: 1 failed, 142 passed, 1 error, 22 warnings (next-20160801)

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 398 bytes --]

On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 03:17:42PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 10:49:26 PM CEST kernelci. org bot wrote:

> > arm:    gcc version 5.3.1 20160113 (Linaro GCC 5.3-2016.02)

> >     rpc_defconfig: FAIL

> I have verified that Linaro GCC 5.3-2016.05 is fixed, only Linaro GCC
> 5.3-2016.02 and earlier have this problem, please upgrade if possible

Adding Kevin in directly.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

Re: next build: 143 builds: 1 failed, 142 passed, 1 error, 22 warnings (next-20160801)

[George Spelvin]

Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>> Warnings:
>>     lib/test_hash.c:224:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32" is not defined [-Wundef]
>>     lib/test_hash.c:229:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32" is not defined [-Wundef]
>>     lib/test_hash.c:234:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64" is not defined [-Wundef]
>>     lib/test_hash.c:146:2: warning: missing braces around initializer [-Wmissing-braces]
>>     lib/test_hash.c:146:2: warning: (near initialization for 'hash_or[0]') [-Wmissing-braces]

> Upgrading to gcc-4.9 will fix avoid that, and a couple of workarounds have
> been discussed before, but I don't know why none of them got merged.

Geert Uytterhoeven was the first to find this problem and propose a
patch, which I acked, and thought it was going in via the m68k tree.
Helge Deller did the same a couple days later, and I told him not to
bother because Geert had taken care of it.

Here are the patches:
https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=146454366031110
https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=146454366131111

Perhaps there was some confusion about whose version was going in, or
via which tree.  Maybe I was wrong to assume Geert was putting them in
the m68k tree.

On Sun, 29 May 2016 19:28:42 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
wrote:
> Some versions of gcc don't like tests for the value of an undefined
> preprocessor symbol, even in the #else branch of an #ifndef:
> 
>     lib/test_hash.c:224:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32" is not defined [-Wundef]
>      #elif HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 != 1
> 	   ^
>     lib/test_hash.c:229:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32" is not defined [-Wundef]
>      #elif HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32 != 1
> 	   ^
>     lib/test_hash.c:234:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64" is not defined [-Wundef]
>      #elif HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64 != 1
> 	   ^
> 
> Seen with gcc 4.9, not seen with 4.1.2.
> 
> Change the logic to only check the value inside an #ifdef to fix this.
> 
> Fixes: 468a9428521e7d00 ("<linux/hash.h>: Add support for architecture-specific functions")
> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
> ---
>  lib/test_hash.c | 24 +++++++++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/test_hash.c b/lib/test_hash.c
> index fd7a677100ebe935..a06ac379ad429c6b 100644
> --- a/lib/test_hash.c
> +++ b/lib/test_hash.c
> @@ -219,21 +219,27 @@ test_hash_init(void)
>  	}
>  
>  	/* Issue notices about skipped tests. */
> -#ifndef HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32
> -	pr_info("__hash_32() has no arch implementation to test.");
> -#elif HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 != 1
> +#ifdef HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32
> +#if HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 != 1
>  	pr_info("__hash_32() is arch-specific; not compared to generic.");
>  #endif
> -#ifndef HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32
> -	pr_info("hash_32() has no arch implementation to test.");
> -#elif HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32 != 1
> +#else
> +	pr_info("__hash_32() has no arch implementation to test.");
> +#endif
> +#ifdef HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32
> +#if HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32 != 1
>  	pr_info("hash_32() is arch-specific; not compared to generic.");
>  #endif
> -#ifndef HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64
> -	pr_info("hash_64() has no arch implementation to test.");
> -#elif HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64 != 1
> +#else
> +	pr_info("hash_32() has no arch implementation to test.");
> +#endif
> +#ifdef HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64
> +#if HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64 != 1
>  	pr_info("hash_64() is arch-specific; not compared to generic.");
>  #endif
> +#else
> +	pr_info("hash_64() has no arch implementation to test.");
> +#endif
>  
>  	pr_notice("%u tests passed.", tests);
>  
> -- 
> 1.9.1
> 

Re: next build: 143 builds: 1 failed, 142 passed, 1 error, 22 warnings (next-20160801)

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi George,

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:57 PM, George Spelvin
<linux@sciencehorizons.net> wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>>> Warnings:
>>>     lib/test_hash.c:224:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32" is not defined [-Wundef]
>>>     lib/test_hash.c:229:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32" is not defined [-Wundef]
>>>     lib/test_hash.c:234:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64" is not defined [-Wundef]
>>>     lib/test_hash.c:146:2: warning: missing braces around initializer [-Wmissing-braces]
>>>     lib/test_hash.c:146:2: warning: (near initialization for 'hash_or[0]') [-Wmissing-braces]
>
>> Upgrading to gcc-4.9 will fix avoid that, and a couple of workarounds have
>> been discussed before, but I don't know why none of them got merged.
>
> Geert Uytterhoeven was the first to find this problem and propose a
> patch, which I acked, and thought it was going in via the m68k tree.
> Helge Deller did the same a couple days later, and I told him not to
> bother because Geert had taken care of it.
>
> Here are the patches:
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=146454366031110
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=146454366131111
>
> Perhaps there was some confusion about whose version was going in, or
> via which tree.  Maybe I was wrong to assume Geert was putting them in
> the m68k tree.

As these patches were meant for generic non-m68k code, I didn't plan
to take them
through my tree.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

Re: next build: 143 builds: 1 failed, 142 passed, 1 error, 22 warnings (next-20160801)

[George Spelvin]

> As these patches were meant for generic non-m68k code, I didn't plan
> to take them through my tree.

Well, that explains everything.  Sorry for letting it fall through the
cracks.  I assumed that since you send pull requests to Linus regularly,
you'd send it directly.

That's why I only acked the patch rather than did anything with it.

So, who wants to send it now?

Re: next build: 143 builds: 1 failed, 142 passed, 1 error, 22 warnings (next-20160801)

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Georges,

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 4:49 PM, George Spelvin
<linux@sciencehorizons.net> wrote:
>> As these patches were meant for generic non-m68k code, I didn't plan
>> to take them through my tree.
>
> Well, that explains everything.  Sorry for letting it fall through the
> cracks.  I assumed that since you send pull requests to Linus regularly,
> you'd send it directly.
>
> That's why I only acked the patch rather than did anything with it.
>
> So, who wants to send it now?

I think you should queue them in your git tree, and send a pull request
to Linus, as that's how the original code went upstream.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

Re: next build: 143 builds: 1 failed, 142 passed, 1 error, 22 warnings (next-20160801)

[Kevin Hilman]

Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> writes:

> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 10:49:26 PM CEST kernelci. org bot wrote:
>> next build: 143 builds: 1 failed, 142 passed, 1 error, 22 warnings (next-20160801)
>> 
>> Full Build Summary: https://kernelci.org/build/next/kernel/next-20160801/
>> 
>> Tree: next
>> Branch: local/master
>> Git Describe: next-20160801
>> Git Commit: c24c1308a5b274bbd90db927cb18efddc95340c7
>> Git URL: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git
>> Built: 3 unique architectures
>> 
>> Build Failure Detected:
>> 
>> arm:    gcc version 5.3.1 20160113 (Linaro GCC 5.3-2016.02)
>> 
>>     rpc_defconfig: FAIL
>
> I have verified that Linaro GCC 5.3-2016.05 is fixed, only Linaro GCC
> 5.3-2016.02 and earlier have this problem, please upgrade if possible

I don't see this packaged up yet.  I'll upgrade as soon as it shows up
here:

https://releases.linaro.org/components/toolchain/binaries/latest-5/arm-linux-gnueabihf/

Thanks for testing and letting us know,

Kevin