12:08 p.m.
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-...
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>
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)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
vim +/arm64_hugetlb_cma_reserve +40 arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
21
22 /*
23 * HugeTLB Support Matrix
24 *
25 * ---------------------------------------------------
26 * | Page Size | CONT PTE | PMD | CONT PMD | PUD |
27 * ---------------------------------------------------
28 * | 4K | 64K | 2M | 32M | 1G |
29 * | 16K | 2M | 32M | 1G | |
30 * | 64K | 2M | 512M | 16G | |
31 * ---------------------------------------------------
32 */
33
34 /*
35 * Reserve CMA areas for the largest supported gigantic
36 * huge page when requested. Any other smaller gigantic
37 * huge pages could still be served from those areas.
38 */
39 #ifdef CONFIG_CMA
40 void __init arm64_hugetlb_cma_reserve(void)
41 {
42 int order;
43
---
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service, Intel Corporation
https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/kbuild-all@lists.01.org
2:05 a.m.
New subject: [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-...
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>
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.
#if defined(CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE) && defined(CONFIG_CMA)
void arm64_hugetlb_cma_reserve(void); <--------- Declaration
#else
static inline void arm64_hugetlb_cma_reserve(void)
{
}
#endif
5:51 a.m.
New subject: [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>
Sent: 2020年6月30日 9:05
To: lkp <lkp(a)intel.com>; linux-mm(a)kvack.org
Cc: kbuild-all(a)lists.01.org; robin.murphy(a)arm.com; Catalin Marinas
<catalin.marinas(a)arm.com>; Will Deacon <will(a)kernel.org>; Mark Rutland
<mark.rutland(a)arm.com>; Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz(a)oracle.com>; Barry
Song <song.bao.hua(a)hisilicon.com>; 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>
>
> 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.
Yes, -Wmissing-prototypes only enabled when make W=1. Kindly refer to
FAQ
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki/LKP-FAQ#how-is-one-meant-to-act-o...
please ignore this warning if confirmed it is not a issue here. sorry for inconvenient.
>
>#if defined(CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE) && defined(CONFIG_CMA) void
>arm64_hugetlb_cma_reserve(void); <--------- Declaration #else static inline void
>arm64_hugetlb_cma_reserve(void) { } #endif
>_______________________________________________
>kbuild-all mailing list -- kbuild-all(a)lists.01.org To unsubscribe send an email to
>kbuild-all-leave(a)lists.01.org
567
days inactive
570
days old
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Anshuman Khandual -
kernel test robot -
Xia, Hui