From: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: kbuild-all@lists.01.org,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/9] locking/rwlocks: introduce write_lock_nested
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2021 11:50:58 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202111201111.c2ApGeHR-lkp@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211115185909.3949505-8-minchan@kernel.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6980 bytes --]
Hi Minchan,
I love your patch! Yet something to improve:
[auto build test ERROR on tip/master]
[also build test ERROR on linux/master linus/master v5.16-rc1]
[cannot apply to hnaz-mm/master tip/locking/core next-20211118]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch]
url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Minchan-Kim/zsmalloc-remove-bit_spin_lock/20211116-030720
base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git 8ab774587903771821b59471cc723bba6d893942
config: nds32-randconfig-r003-20211115 (attached as .config)
compiler: nds32le-linux-gcc (GCC) 11.2.0
reproduce (this is a W=1 build):
wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross -O ~/bin/make.cross
chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross
# https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commit/c24db750268d85953fe12742e6e4a7b8baf16623
git remote add linux-review https://github.com/0day-ci/linux
git fetch --no-tags linux-review Minchan-Kim/zsmalloc-remove-bit_spin_lock/20211116-030720
git checkout c24db750268d85953fe12742e6e4a7b8baf16623
# save the attached .config to linux build tree
COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=gcc-11.2.0 make.cross ARCH=nds32
If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
kernel/locking/spinlock.c:68:17: warning: no previous prototype for '__raw_spin_lock' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
68 | void __lockfunc __raw_##op##_lock(locktype##_t *lock) \
| ^~~~~~
kernel/locking/spinlock.c:126:1: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_LOCK_OPS'
126 | BUILD_LOCK_OPS(spin, raw_spinlock);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
kernel/locking/spinlock.c:80:26: warning: no previous prototype for '__raw_spin_lock_irqsave' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
80 | unsigned long __lockfunc __raw_##op##_lock_irqsave(locktype##_t *lock) \
| ^~~~~~
kernel/locking/spinlock.c:126:1: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_LOCK_OPS'
126 | BUILD_LOCK_OPS(spin, raw_spinlock);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
kernel/locking/spinlock.c:98:17: warning: no previous prototype for '__raw_spin_lock_irq' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
98 | void __lockfunc __raw_##op##_lock_irq(locktype##_t *lock) \
| ^~~~~~
kernel/locking/spinlock.c:126:1: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_LOCK_OPS'
126 | BUILD_LOCK_OPS(spin, raw_spinlock);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
kernel/locking/spinlock.c:103:17: warning: no previous prototype for '__raw_spin_lock_bh' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
103 | void __lockfunc __raw_##op##_lock_bh(locktype##_t *lock) \
| ^~~~~~
kernel/locking/spinlock.c:126:1: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_LOCK_OPS'
126 | BUILD_LOCK_OPS(spin, raw_spinlock);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
kernel/locking/spinlock.c:68:17: warning: no previous prototype for '__raw_read_lock' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
68 | void __lockfunc __raw_##op##_lock(locktype##_t *lock) \
| ^~~~~~
kernel/locking/spinlock.c:129:1: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_LOCK_OPS'
129 | BUILD_LOCK_OPS(read, rwlock);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
kernel/locking/spinlock.c:80:26: warning: no previous prototype for '__raw_read_lock_irqsave' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
80 | unsigned long __lockfunc __raw_##op##_lock_irqsave(locktype##_t *lock) \
| ^~~~~~
kernel/locking/spinlock.c:129:1: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_LOCK_OPS'
129 | BUILD_LOCK_OPS(read, rwlock);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
kernel/locking/spinlock.c:98:17: warning: no previous prototype for '__raw_read_lock_irq' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
98 | void __lockfunc __raw_##op##_lock_irq(locktype##_t *lock) \
| ^~~~~~
kernel/locking/spinlock.c:129:1: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_LOCK_OPS'
129 | BUILD_LOCK_OPS(read, rwlock);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
kernel/locking/spinlock.c:103:17: warning: no previous prototype for '__raw_read_lock_bh' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
103 | void __lockfunc __raw_##op##_lock_bh(locktype##_t *lock) \
| ^~~~~~
kernel/locking/spinlock.c:129:1: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_LOCK_OPS'
129 | BUILD_LOCK_OPS(read, rwlock);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
kernel/locking/spinlock.c:68:17: warning: no previous prototype for '__raw_write_lock' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
68 | void __lockfunc __raw_##op##_lock(locktype##_t *lock) \
| ^~~~~~
kernel/locking/spinlock.c:130:1: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_LOCK_OPS'
130 | BUILD_LOCK_OPS(write, rwlock);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
kernel/locking/spinlock.c:80:26: warning: no previous prototype for '__raw_write_lock_irqsave' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
80 | unsigned long __lockfunc __raw_##op##_lock_irqsave(locktype##_t *lock) \
| ^~~~~~
kernel/locking/spinlock.c:130:1: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_LOCK_OPS'
130 | BUILD_LOCK_OPS(write, rwlock);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
kernel/locking/spinlock.c:98:17: warning: no previous prototype for '__raw_write_lock_irq' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
98 | void __lockfunc __raw_##op##_lock_irq(locktype##_t *lock) \
| ^~~~~~
kernel/locking/spinlock.c:130:1: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_LOCK_OPS'
130 | BUILD_LOCK_OPS(write, rwlock);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
kernel/locking/spinlock.c:103:17: warning: no previous prototype for '__raw_write_lock_bh' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
103 | void __lockfunc __raw_##op##_lock_bh(locktype##_t *lock) \
| ^~~~~~
kernel/locking/spinlock.c:130:1: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_LOCK_OPS'
130 | BUILD_LOCK_OPS(write, rwlock);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
kernel/locking/spinlock.c: In function '_raw_write_lock_nested':
>> kernel/locking/spinlock.c:306:9: error: implicit declaration of function '__raw_write_lock_nested'; did you mean '_raw_write_lock_nested'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
306 | __raw_write_lock_nested(lock, subclass);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| _raw_write_lock_nested
cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
vim +306 kernel/locking/spinlock.c
303
304 void __lockfunc _raw_write_lock_nested(rwlock_t *lock, int subclass)
305 {
> 306 __raw_write_lock_nested(lock, subclass);
307 }
308 EXPORT_SYMBOL(_raw_write_lock_nested);
309 #endif
310
---
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service, Intel Corporation
https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/kbuild-all@lists.01.org
[-- Attachment #2: .config.gz --]
[-- Type: application/gzip, Size: 35183 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-20 3:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-15 18:59 [PATCH v2 0/9] zsmalloc: remove bit_spin_lock Minchan Kim
2021-11-15 18:59 ` [PATCH v2 1/9] zsmalloc: introduce some helper functions Minchan Kim
2021-11-15 18:59 ` [PATCH v2 2/9] zsmalloc: rename zs_stat_type to class_stat_type Minchan Kim
2021-11-15 18:59 ` [PATCH v2 3/9] zsmalloc: decouple class actions from zspage works Minchan Kim
2021-11-15 18:59 ` [PATCH v2 4/9] zsmalloc: introduce obj_allocated Minchan Kim
2021-11-15 18:59 ` [PATCH v2 5/9] zsmalloc: move huge compressed obj from page to zspage Minchan Kim
2021-11-15 18:59 ` [PATCH v2 6/9] zsmalloc: remove zspage isolation for migration Minchan Kim
2021-11-15 18:59 ` [PATCH v2 7/9] locking/rwlocks: introduce write_lock_nested Minchan Kim
2021-11-16 10:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-19 10:35 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2021-11-19 18:21 ` Minchan Kim
2021-11-20 15:38 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2021-11-20 3:50 ` kernel test robot [this message]
2021-11-15 18:59 ` [PATCH v2 8/9] zsmalloc: replace per zpage lock with pool->migrate_lock Minchan Kim
2021-11-15 18:59 ` [PATCH v2 9/9] zsmalloc: replace get_cpu_var with local_lock Minchan Kim
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=202111201111.c2ApGeHR-lkp@intel.com \
--to=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kbuild-all@lists.01.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=minchan@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=senozhatsky@chromium.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox