[kbuild-all] Re: [PATCH V2] arm64/hugetlb: Reserve CMA areas for gigantic pages on 16K and 64K configs

-----Original Message----- From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual(a)arm.com&gt; Sent: 2020年6月30日 9:05 To: lkp <lkp(a)intel.com&gt;; linux-mm(a)kvack.org Cc: kbuild-all(a)lists.01.org; robin.murphy(a)arm.com; Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas(a)arm.com&gt;; Will Deacon <will(a)kernel.org&gt;; Mark Rutland <mark.rutland(a)arm.com&gt;; Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz(a)oracle.com&gt;; Barry Song <song.bao.hua(a)hisilicon.com&gt;; Andrew Morton <akpm@linux- foundation.org> Subject: [kbuild-all] Re: [PATCH V2] arm64/hugetlb: Reserve CMA areas for gigantic pages on 16K and 64K configs On 06/29/2020 04:38 PM, kernel test robot wrote: > Hi Anshuman, > > Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve: > > [auto build test WARNING on v5.8-rc3] > [also build test WARNING on next-20200629] [cannot apply to > arm64/for-next/core] [If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, > kindly drop us a note. > And when submitting patch, we suggest to use as documented in > https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch] > > url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Anshuman-Khandual/arm64- hugetlb-Reserve-CMA-areas-for-gigantic-pages-on-16K-and-64K- configs/20200629-144736 > base: 9ebcfadb0610322ac537dd7aa5d9cbc2b2894c68 > config: arm64-defconfig (attached as .config) > compiler: aarch64-linux-gcc (GCC) 9.3.0 reproduce (this is a W=1 > build): > 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 > COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=gcc-9.3.0 make.cross > ARCH=arm64 > > If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp(a)intel.com&gt; > > All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>): > >>> arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c:40:13: warning: no previous prototype >>> for 'arm64_hugetlb_cma_reserve' [-Wmissing-prototypes] > 40 | void __init arm64_hugetlb_cma_reserve(void) > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This only comes up with W=1 and I wonder if this is truly a valid warning. Should all non-static function needs to have a declaration in a header file ? In this case, there is a declaration for this function near the call site itself, why should not that be sufficient.