2:11 a.m.
Hi Mark,
I love your patch! Perhaps something to improve:
[auto build test WARNING on next-20200605]
[cannot apply to arm64/for-next/core arm-perf/for-next/perf kselftest/next v5.7 v5.7-rc7
v5.7-rc6 v5.7]
[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/Mark-Brown/arm64-vdso-getcpu-sup...
base: af30725c132e2e5c5369b60369ff0771fde7d4ff
config: arm64-allyesconfig (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>
All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>, old ones prefixed by <<):
> arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/vgetcpu.c:33:5: warning: no previous
prototype for '__kernel_getcpu' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
33 | int
__kernel_getcpu(unsigned int *cpu, unsigned int *node,
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
> arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/vgetcpu.c:33:5: warning: no previous
prototype for '__kernel_getcpu' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
33 | int
__kernel_getcpu(unsigned int *cpu, unsigned int *node,
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/vgettimeofday.c:9:5: warning: no previous prototype for
'__kernel_clock_gettime' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
9 | int __kernel_clock_gettime(clockid_t clock,
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/vgettimeofday.c:15:5: warning: no previous prototype for
'__kernel_gettimeofday' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
15 | int __kernel_gettimeofday(struct __kernel_old_timeval *tv,
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/vgettimeofday.c:21:5: warning: no previous prototype for
'__kernel_clock_getres' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
21 | int __kernel_clock_getres(clockid_t clock_id,
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
vim +/__kernel_getcpu +33 arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/vgetcpu.c
32
33 int __kernel_getcpu(unsigned int *cpu, unsigned int *node,
---
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service, Intel Corporation
https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/kbuild-all@lists.01.org
2:35 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH 4/5] arm64: vdso: Add getcpu() implementation
On Sat, Jun 06, 2020 at 12:11:08AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>> arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/vgetcpu.c:33:5: warning: no previous
prototype for '__kernel_getcpu' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
33 | int __kernel_getcpu(unsigned int *cpu, unsigned int *node,
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
>> arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/vgetcpu.c:33:5: warning: no previous prototype for
'__kernel_getcpu' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
33 | int __kernel_getcpu(unsigned int *cpu, unsigned int *node,
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/vgettimeofday.c:9:5: warning: no previous prototype for
'__kernel_clock_gettime' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
9 | int __kernel_clock_gettime(clockid_t clock,
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm not seeing this here and what we're doing is in line with the
existing idiom as can be seen from the __kernel_clock_gettime() code
flagging the same thing. Possibly an old/outdated toolchain?
5:46 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH 4/5] arm64: vdso: Add getcpu() implementation
Hi Mark
On 6/6/20 12:35 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Sat, Jun 06, 2020 at 12:11:08AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>>> arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/vgetcpu.c:33:5: warning: no previous prototype for
'__kernel_getcpu' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
> 33 | int __kernel_getcpu(unsigned int *cpu, unsigned int *node,
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> --
>>> arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/vgetcpu.c:33:5: warning: no previous prototype for
'__kernel_getcpu' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
> 33 | int __kernel_getcpu(unsigned int *cpu, unsigned int *node,
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/vgettimeofday.c:9:5: warning: no previous prototype for
'__kernel_clock_gettime' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
> 9 | int __kernel_clock_gettime(clockid_t clock,
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm not seeing this here and what we're doing is in line with the
existing idiom as can be seen from the __kernel_clock_gettime() code
flagging the same thing. Possibly an old/outdated toolchain?
thanks for your
input.
Actually, the origin mail contained 4 warnings, and only one is *new*,
as the mail mentioned that
All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>, old ones prefixed by
<<):
0Day/LKP had marked the *new* ones prefixed by '>>'
>> arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/vgetcpu.c:33:5: warning: no previous prototype for
'__kernel_getcpu' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
33 | int __kernel_getcpu(unsigned int *cpu, unsigned int *node,
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the rest 3 warnings, indeed they are not introduced by this patch,
0Day/LKP listed them here because they appeared near the *new* warning(s).
0Day/LKP hope the extra info/warnings could be also helpful for diagnosis.
Thanks
9:09 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH 4/5] arm64: vdso: Add getcpu() implementation
On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 03:46:57PM +0800, Li Zhijian wrote:
On 6/6/20 12:35 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/vgettimeofday.c:9:5: warning: no
previous prototype for '__kernel_clock_gettime' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
> > 9 | int __kernel_clock_gettime(clockid_t clock,
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> I'm not seeing this here and what we're doing is in line
with the
> existing idiom as can be seen from the __kernel_clock_gettime() code
> flagging the same thing. Possibly an old/outdated toolchain?
Actually, the origin mail contained 4 warnings, and only one is
*new*, as
the mail mentioned that
> All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>, old ones prefixed
by <<):
0Day/LKP had marked the *new* ones prefixed by '>>'
My point here is that all the warnings, both old and new, look spurious
and the new warning comes from following the pattern that generates the
existing warnings. I'm not seeing any of those warnings locally or in
other build services like KernelCI.
12:20 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH 4/5] arm64: vdso: Add getcpu() implementation
On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 12:09:01PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 03:46:57PM +0800, Li Zhijian wrote:
> On 6/6/20 12:35 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/vgettimeofday.c:9:5: warning: no previous prototype
for '__kernel_clock_gettime' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
> > > 9 | int __kernel_clock_gettime(clockid_t clock,
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > I'm not seeing this here and what we're doing is in line with the
> > existing idiom as can be seen from the __kernel_clock_gettime() code
> > flagging the same thing. Possibly an old/outdated toolchain?
> Actually, the origin mail contained 4 warnings, and only one is *new*, as
> the mail mentioned that
> > All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>, old ones prefixed by <<):
> 0Day/LKP had marked the *new* ones prefixed by '>>'
My point here is that all the warnings, both old and new, look spurious
and the new warning comes from following the pattern that generates the
existing warnings. I'm not seeing any of those warnings locally or in
other build services like KernelCI.
Thanks Mark for the input. Here the 0-day
kernel bot uses W=1 to build which
is mentioned as part of reproduce step.
reproduce (this is a W=1 build):
And we just add FAQ at
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki/LKP-FAQ#how-is-one-meant-to-act-o...
to explain the the missing-prototypes warning, hope this can provide
extra information.
Thanks
_______________________________________________
kbuild-all mailing list -- kbuild-all(a)lists.01.org
To unsubscribe send an email to kbuild-all-leave(a)lists.01.org
834
days inactive
837
days old
4 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
kernel test robot -
Li Zhijian -
Mark Brown -
Philip Li