From: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
To: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
llvm@lists.linux.dev, oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev,
Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>,
x86@kernel.org, "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] mm/treewide: Drop pXd_large()
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 15:56:11 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZeA4m7DK03oHE1Kz@x1n> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202402291233.CVhChP2c-lkp@intel.com>
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 01:17:36PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> >> arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h:1099:19: error: redefinition of 'pud_leaf'
> 1099 | static inline int pud_leaf(pud_t pud)
> | ^
> include/asm-generic/pgtable-nopmd.h:34:19: note: previous definition is here
> 34 | static inline int pud_leaf(pud_t pud) { return 0; }
> | ^
This is CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS=2. IIUC patch 5 didn't do anything wrong,
but when renaming pud_large() it caused this confliction, while in the past
it was a silent confliction between the old pud_leaf() macro and pud_leaf()
defintion, the macro could have silently overwrote the function.
IIUC such pud_leaf() is not needed as we have a global fallback. I'll add
a pre-requisite patch to remove such pXd_leaf() definitions.
--
Peter Xu
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-29 7:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-28 8:53 [PATCH 0/5] mm/treewide: Replace pXd_large() with pXd_leaf() peterx
2024-02-28 8:53 ` [PATCH 1/5] mm/ppc: Define " peterx
2024-02-28 8:53 ` [PATCH 2/5] mm/x86: Replace p4d_large() with p4d_leaf() peterx
2024-02-28 8:53 ` [PATCH 3/5] mm/treewide: Replace pmd_large() with pmd_leaf() peterx
2024-02-28 8:53 ` [PATCH 4/5] mm/treewide: Replace pud_large() with pud_leaf() peterx
2024-02-28 8:53 ` [PATCH 5/5] mm/treewide: Drop pXd_large() peterx
2024-02-29 5:17 ` kernel test robot
2024-02-29 7:56 ` Peter Xu [this message]
2024-02-28 9:50 ` [PATCH 0/5] mm/treewide: Replace pXd_large() with pXd_leaf() Christophe Leroy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ZeA4m7DK03oHE1Kz@x1n \
--to=peterx@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jgg@nvidia.com \
--cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
--cc=oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=shy828301@gmail.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).