[kbuild-all] Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm/gup: fix a misnamed "write" argument: should be "flags"

On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 08:14:04PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > On 10/14/19 7:22 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 11:43:10PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote: >>> On 10/13/19 11:12 PM, kbuild test robot wrote: >>>> Hi John, >>>> >>>> Thank you for the patch! Yet something to improve: >>>> >>>> [auto build test ERROR on linus/master] >>>> [cannot apply to v5.4-rc3 next-20191011] >>>> [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help >>>> improve the system. BTW, we also suggest to use '--base' option to specify the >>>> base tree in git format-patch, please see https://stackoverflow.com/a/37406982] >>>> >>>> url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/John-Hubbard/gup-c-gup_benchmark... >>>> config: powerpc-defconfig (attached as .config) >>>> compiler: powerpc64-linux-gcc (GCC) 7.4.0 >>>> reproduce: >>>> wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross -O ~/bin/make.cross >>>> chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross >>>> # save the attached .config to linux build tree >>>> GCC_VERSION=7.4.0 make.cross ARCH=powerpc >>>> >>>> If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag >>>> Reported-by: kbuild test robot <lkp(a)intel.com&gt; >>>> >>>> All errors (new ones prefixed by >>): >>>> >>>> mm/gup.c: In function 'gup_hugepte': >>>>>> mm/gup.c:1990:33: error: 'write' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'writeq'? >>>> if (!pte_access_permitted(pte, write)) >>>> ^~~~~ >>>> writeq >>>> mm/gup.c:1990:33: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in >>>> >>> >>> OK, so this shows that my cross-compiler test scripts are faulty lately, >>> sorry I missed this. >>> >>> But more importantly, the above missed case is an example of when "write" really >>> means "write", as opposed to meaning flags. >>> >>> Please put this patch on hold or drop it, until we hear from the authors as to how >>> they would like to resolve this. I suspect it will end up as something like: >>> >>> bool write = (flags & FOLL_WRITE); >>> >>> ...perhaps? >> >> Just use >> >> if (!pte_access_permitted(pte, flags & FOLL_WRITE)) >> >> as we have in gup_pte_range(). >> >> And add: >> >> Fixes: cbd34da7dc9a ("mm: move the powerpc hugepd code to mm/gup.c") >> > > b798bec4741bdd80224214fdd004c8e52698e42 isn't this the commit that need to > be mentioned in the Fixes: tag? Yes, and while we are at it the type should probably be changed to unsigned int.