From: "Li, Philip" <philip.li@intel.com>
To: "Wu, Fengguang" <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: lkp <lkp@intel.com>, Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@microsoft.com>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"kbuild-all@01.org" <kbuild-all@01.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Subject: RE: [kbuild-all] [mmotm:master 149/199] lib/idr.c:583:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'xa_lock_irqsave'; did you mean 'read_lock_irqsave'?
Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 00:48:29 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <831EE4E5E37DCC428EB295A351E662494CB2C11A@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180519143139.2bryoecv4qwbhgtr@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [kbuild-all] [mmotm:master 149/199] lib/idr.c:583:2: error: implicit
> declaration of function 'xa_lock_irqsave'; did you mean 'read_lock_irqsave'?
>
> 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 <lkp@intel.com> 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, we will follow up this to consider this situation.
>
> Thanks,
> Fengguang
> _______________________________________________
> kbuild-all mailing list
> kbuild-all@lists.01.org
> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/kbuild-all
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-21 0:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-18 20:21 kbuild test robot
2018-05-18 22:10 ` Andrew Morton
2018-05-19 14:31 ` Fengguang Wu
2018-05-21 0:48 ` Li, Philip [this message]
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=831EE4E5E37DCC428EB295A351E662494CB2C11A@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com \
--to=philip.li@intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kbuild-all@01.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=mawilcox@microsoft.com \
/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