From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl0-f71.google.com (mail-pl0-f71.google.com [209.85.160.71]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C28496B06D1 for ; Sat, 19 May 2018 10:31:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pl0-f71.google.com with SMTP id a5-v6so6908313plp.8 for ; Sat, 19 May 2018 07:31:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com. [192.55.52.43]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e84-v6si9899085pfk.198.2018.05.19.07.31.42 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 19 May 2018 07:31:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 19 May 2018 22:31:39 +0800 From: Fengguang Wu Subject: Re: [mmotm:master 149/199] lib/idr.c:583:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'xa_lock_irqsave'; did you mean 'read_lock_irqsave'? Message-ID: <20180519143139.2bryoecv4qwbhgtr@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> References: <201805190415.2D1H4m65%fengguang.wu@intel.com> <20180518151000.93517f28f3338bb39f558a90@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180518151000.93517f28f3338bb39f558a90@linux-foundation.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Andrew Morton Cc: kbuild test robot , Matthew Wilcox , kbuild-all@01.org, Johannes Weiner , Linux Memory Management List , "Hao, Shun" Hi Andrew, On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 03:10:00PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: >On Sat, 19 May 2018 04:21:17 +0800 kbuild test robot wrote: > >> tree: git://git.cmpxchg.org/linux-mmotm.git master >> head: 7400fc6942aefa2e009272d0e118284f110c5088 >> commit: d5f90621ff2af7f139b01b7bcf8649a91665965e [149/199] lib/idr.c: remove simple_ida_lock >> config: x86_64-randconfig-i0-201819 (attached as .config) >> compiler: gcc-7 (Debian 7.3.0-16) 7.3.0 >> reproduce: >> git checkout d5f90621ff2af7f139b01b7bcf8649a91665965e >> # save the attached .config to linux build tree >> make ARCH=x86_64 >> >> Note: the mmotm/master HEAD 7400fc6942aefa2e009272d0e118284f110c5088 builds fine. >> It only hurts bisectibility. >> > >I'm a bit surprised we're seeing this. >ida-remove-simple_ida_lock.patch introduces this error, and the very >next patch ida-remove-simple_ida_lock-fix.patch fixes it. > >I'm pretty sure that the robot software is capable of detecting this >situation and ignoring the error. Did that code get broken? Yes sorry, the robot code looks not reliable when testing the follow up -fix patches. The check is done when first seeing the error instead of before sending out the final report. In the 2 cases, the next patch of the error commit could be subtly different. Shun Hao: to be 100% reliable, we'll also need to check the follow up -fix patches just before sending out the report. Thanks, Fengguang