Re: [PATCH 6.1.y] selftests/mm: Move default_huge_page_size to vm_util.c

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 04:08:45PM +0800, Leon Hwang wrote:
> 
> 
> 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 <lance.yang@linux.dev>
> >> Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>
> >> ---
> >>  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.

We can easily take lots of patches, don't worry about the quantity.  But
it would be good to figure out what caused this to break here, and not
in other branches.

thanks,

greg k-h