[kbuild-all] Re: [PATCH] s390: fix build error for sys_call_table_emu

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 07:03:20PM +0800, Xiaoming Ni wrote: > Build error on s390: > arch/s390/kernel/entry.o: in function `sys_call_table_emu': > >> (.rodata+0x1288): undefined reference to `__s390_' > > In commit ("All arch: remove system call sys_sysctl") > 148 common fdatasync sys_fdatasync sys_fdatasync > -149 common _sysctl sys_sysctl compat_sys_sysctl > +149 common _sysctl sys_ni_syscall > 150 common mlock sys_mlock sys_mlock > > After the patch is integrated, there is a format error in the generated > arch/s390/include/generated/asm/syscall_table.h: > SYSCALL(sys_fdatasync, sys_fdatasync) > SYSCALL(sys_ni_syscall,) /* cause build error */ > SYSCALL(sys_mlock,sys_mlock) > > There are holes in the system call number in > arch/s390/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl. When generating syscall_table.h, > these hole numbers will be automatically filled with "NI_SYSCALL". > Therefore, delete the number 149 to fix the current compilation failure. > Similarly, modify tools/perf/arch/s390/entry/syscalls/syscall.tbl. > > Fixes: ("All arch: remove system call sys_sysctl") > Fixes: https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/20200616030734.87257-1-nixiaoming@hu... > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp(a)intel.com&gt; > Signed-off-by: Xiaoming Ni <nixiaoming(a)huawei.com&gt; > --- > arch/s390/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl | 1 - > tools/perf/arch/s390/entry/syscalls/syscall.tbl | 1 - > 2 files changed, 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/s390/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl b/arch/s390/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl > index f17aaf6fe5de..bcaf93994e3c 100644 > --- a/arch/s390/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl > +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl > @@ -138,7 +138,6 @@ > 146 common writev sys_writev compat_sys_writev > 147 common getsid sys_getsid sys_getsid > 148 common fdatasync sys_fdatasync sys_fdatasync > -149 common _sysctl sys_ni_syscall This is not correct. It should be changed to: 149 common _sysctl - - Otherwise the generated __NR__sysctl define will be lost from unistd.h, which should not happen. Looking at the link above it _looks_ like a similar mistake was done for arm64.