From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-171.mta0.migadu.com (out-171.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FAF23019C4 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2025 08:09:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.171 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761120550; cv=none; b=qB8D1KtPQRRqSPKjY3/JC0P2wfmvJnXvMsBYQTOj92ocyfU0YRg3GNeua9RP38m2h4Tb1Z5LW4UA8f+90JB8bBTLRps3B5zyQGuM1oMDPpPgJHdmDCuS2nAtrA4pq2NQwZqtf0PvSSvZcYUbMuTuDaERHcYXrJGLpilKz0a6Nzg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761120550; c=relaxed/simple; bh=RsP5RrPvtPbyQEE6lSIsb/kLdVzTRaNk8Als0dqrf5s=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=tAYxhQbkfovt/I3p52pSJvIPcfoyX3fyfAou5qIzv7JztAdCtlTKeQTjCPsBWlqntQfbSDzrbeX+7ATw0vlFXKWbnFzk1ugCge6VYsvKnhiwD9bp4KaGP4xzNtHVfi0IbFO4ENQyc11xvCteEs3GzXLZTiNjs/LK+uQ5bguccvQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=NRxCzfRy; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.171 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="NRxCzfRy" Message-ID: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1761120533; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=oXVMbOIfSgQPYb3Rv158n4rxfH8lc3g8IYzbeXhIsuI=; b=NRxCzfRyDKrdrdCaeEz+qFuxY+6mWedZ/EXzT2J6s/POmGvSXZAGbnlUgsNtnTl47Ga/OO b6B2Fm3BVsBLOscecU8WMG97uCmjhWlLx5E5dnGA+3LGGUHnDkLj05Aq+hQFHMClFMlTYL dbv3F7ZkGGuImW6ZIQJefaUyIOy6afk= Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 16:08:45 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.1.y] selftests/mm: Move default_huge_page_size to vm_util.c Content-Language: en-US To: Greg KH Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, david@redhat.com, lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com, shuah@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Lance Yang References: <20251022055138.375042-1-leon.hwang@linux.dev> <2025102230-scoured-levitator-a530@gregkh> X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Leon Hwang In-Reply-To: <2025102230-scoured-levitator-a530@gregkh> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On 22/10/25 15:40, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 01:51:38PM +0800, Leon Hwang wrote: >> Fix the build error: >> >> map_hugetlb.c: In function 'main': >> map_hugetlb.c:79:25: warning: implicit declaration of function 'default_huge_page_size' [-Wimplicit-function-declaration] >> 79 | hugepage_size = default_huge_page_size(); >> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> /usr/bin/ld: /tmp/ccYOogvJ.o: in function 'main': >> map_hugetlb.c:(.text+0x114): undefined reference to 'default_huge_page_size' >> >> According to the latest selftests, 'default_huge_page_size' has been >> moved to 'vm_util.c'. So fix the error by the same way. >> >> Reviewed-by: Lance Yang >> Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang >> --- >> tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile | 1 + >> tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c | 24 ------------------------ >> tools/testing/selftests/vm/vm_util.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ >> tools/testing/selftests/vm/vm_util.h | 1 + >> 4 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) > > > What commit id does this fix? And again, why not just take the original Let me check which commit introduced the fix. > commits instead? I agree that taking the original commits would be preferable. However, it might involve quite a few patches to backport, which could be a bit of work. If the backport turns out to be too complex, I think it’s acceptable to leave the build error as-is for now. Thanks, Leon > > thanks, > > greg k-h