From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f44.google.com (mail-wm0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EBCD6B0009 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 06:25:21 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wm0-f44.google.com with SMTP id p63so64087758wmp.1 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 03:25:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id df5si21517703wjb.118.2016.01.29.03.25.20 for (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 29 Jan 2016 03:25:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [linux-next:master 1875/2100] include/linux/jump_label.h:122:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'atomic_read' References: <201601291512.vqk4lpvV%fengguang.wu@intel.com> <56AB3EEB.8090808@suse.cz> <20160129215335.1a049964@canb.auug.org.au> From: Vlastimil Babka Message-ID: <56AB4C1D.5090801@suse.cz> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 12:25:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160129215335.1a049964@canb.auug.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: kbuild test robot , Heiko Carstens , Martin Schwidefsky , kbuild-all@01.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Peter Zijlstra On 01/29/2016 11:53 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Vlastimil, > > On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 11:28:59 +0100 Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> > include/linux/jump_label.h: In function 'static_key_count': >> >>> include/linux/jump_label.h:122:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'atomic_read' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] >> > return atomic_read(&key->enabled); >> >> Sigh. >> >> I don't get it, there's "#include " in jump_label.h right before >> it gets used. So, what implicit declaration? > > But we are in the process of reading linux/atomic.h already, and the > #include in jump_label.h will just not read it then (because of the > include guards) so the body of linux/atomic.h has not yet been read > when we process static_key_count(). i.e. we have a circular inclusion. Oh, of course, doh. Thanks. Please replace the -fix with this patch. Sorry again. ----8<----