From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christian Borntraeger Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 20:00:34 +0000 Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 7 Message-Id: <54AD9062.8080204@de.ibm.com> List-Id: References: <20150107151618.7cb9d574@canb.auug.org.au> <20150107142656.GA5666@roeck-us.net> <20150107163310.GZ5280@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150107173022.GA26631@roeck-us.net> <20150107180922.GC5280@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150107191813.GA28881@roeck-us.net> In-Reply-To: <20150107191813.GA28881@roeck-us.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Guenter Roeck , "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org Am 07.01.2015 um 20:18 schrieb Guenter Roeck: > On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 10:09:22AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 09:30:22AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 08:33:10AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 06:26:56AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 03:16:18PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Changes since 20150106: >>>>>> >>>>>> *crickets* >>>>>> >>>>>> Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 1350 >>>>>> 1543 files changed, 41856 insertions(+), 24250 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> New build failure for sh:dreamcast_defconfig: >>>>> >>>>> arch/sh/mm/gup.c: In function 'gup_get_pte': >>>>> arch/sh/mm/gup.c:20:2: error: invalid initializer >>>>> make[1]: *** [arch/sh/mm/gup.o] Error 1 >>>>> >>>>> bisect log: >>>>> >>>>> # bad: [7e3619a6de57f0257a2f6480182d2287ee05e314] Add linux-next specific files for 20150107 >>>>> # good: [b1940cd21c0f4abdce101253e860feff547291b0] Linux 3.19-rc3 >>>>> git bisect start 'HEAD' 'v3.19-rc3' >>>>> # good: [c48667c5659248ff2b2fbff5cd23c43b5768e81b] Merge remote-tracking branch 'net-next/master' >>>>> git bisect good c48667c5659248ff2b2fbff5cd23c43b5768e81b >>>>> # good: [b8cf629ce7d554711dd7ab256b00e6110355e1d7] Merge remote-tracking branch 'mmc-uh/next' >>>>> git bisect good b8cf629ce7d554711dd7ab256b00e6110355e1d7 >>>>> # good: [cc52ff032bc2d91c78d7cf9aefcfa9e266ace816] Merge remote-tracking branch 'rcu/rcu/next' >>>>> git bisect good cc52ff032bc2d91c78d7cf9aefcfa9e266ace816 >>>>> # bad: [9634277bcdab7b9d6a91409dc11d85502aa2e74b] Merge remote-tracking branch 'access_once/linux-next' >>>>> git bisect bad 9634277bcdab7b9d6a91409dc11d85502aa2e74b >>>>> # good: [261379560ee6aa65b4869c94eda0d3d60773aca3] Merge remote-tracking branch 'scsi/for-next' >>>>> git bisect good 261379560ee6aa65b4869c94eda0d3d60773aca3 >>>>> # good: [38d45afa56bfca714780e45532760d64cd53b65b] Merge remote-tracking branch 'llvmlinux/for-next' >>>>> git bisect good 38d45afa56bfca714780e45532760d64cd53b65b >>>>> # good: [9afbe1ce2403c7d097bfaafcc5b27950040f7608] Merge remote-tracking branch 'y2038/y2038' >>>>> git bisect good 9afbe1ce2403c7d097bfaafcc5b27950040f7608 >>>>> # bad: [a91ed664749cbec0325ef9da7d12619d9bb72e2d] kernel: tighten rules for ACCESS ONCE >>>>> git bisect bad a91ed664749cbec0325ef9da7d12619d9bb72e2d >>>>> # good: [e3865cc4a17e979e6b2f26af026686fae5567096] x86/xen/p2m: Replace ACCESS_ONCE with READ_ONCE >>>>> git bisect good e3865cc4a17e979e6b2f26af026686fae5567096 >>>>> # good: [e2579c6f22ee0a43394d603cef6989dca98c5610] mm/gup: Replace ACCESS_ONCE with READ_ONCE >>>>> git bisect good e2579c6f22ee0a43394d603cef6989dca98c5610 >>>>> # first bad commit: [a91ed664749cbec0325ef9da7d12619d9bb72e2d] kernel: tighten rules for ACCESS ONCE >>>>> >>>>> Maybe the ACCESS_ONCE in the affected file should be replaced with READ_ONCE ? >>>> >>>> That is my belief. What happens when you try it? >>>> >>> Build passes, and my qemu tests pass as well. That doesn't mean >>> that the change is correct, of course, since I don't know if the code >>> in question is executed. >> >> Would it be possible to increment a counter at that location, then >> print it out at some convenient point? >> > I made it simpler and just added a call to panic() ... which had no effect, > so the function is not called in my qemu tests. Any idea what I would have > to do to trigger a call ? > >>> Should I send a patch with the change ? >> >> I believe such a patch is needed. Testing would be good, but the patch >> is what we were thinking of for this situation. >> > I'll probably send a patch marked "compile-tested only" if I can't find a way > to test the change. I was going to fix as well, but I can certainly take your patch. Can you send it with proper signed-off-by etc and I will add it to the access_once tree? Christian From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754623AbbAGUAp (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:00:45 -0500 Received: from e06smtp16.uk.ibm.com ([195.75.94.112]:51351 "EHLO e06smtp16.uk.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753386AbbAGUAn (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:00:43 -0500 Message-ID: <54AD9062.8080204@de.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 21:00:34 +0100 From: Christian Borntraeger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Guenter Roeck , "Paul E. McKenney" CC: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 7 References: <20150107151618.7cb9d574@canb.auug.org.au> <20150107142656.GA5666@roeck-us.net> <20150107163310.GZ5280@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150107173022.GA26631@roeck-us.net> <20150107180922.GC5280@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150107191813.GA28881@roeck-us.net> In-Reply-To: <20150107191813.GA28881@roeck-us.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 15010720-0025-0000-0000-00000343522E Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am 07.01.2015 um 20:18 schrieb Guenter Roeck: > On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 10:09:22AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 09:30:22AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 08:33:10AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 06:26:56AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 03:16:18PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Changes since 20150106: >>>>>> >>>>>> *crickets* >>>>>> >>>>>> Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 1350 >>>>>> 1543 files changed, 41856 insertions(+), 24250 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> New build failure for sh:dreamcast_defconfig: >>>>> >>>>> arch/sh/mm/gup.c: In function 'gup_get_pte': >>>>> arch/sh/mm/gup.c:20:2: error: invalid initializer >>>>> make[1]: *** [arch/sh/mm/gup.o] Error 1 >>>>> >>>>> bisect log: >>>>> >>>>> # bad: [7e3619a6de57f0257a2f6480182d2287ee05e314] Add linux-next specific files for 20150107 >>>>> # good: [b1940cd21c0f4abdce101253e860feff547291b0] Linux 3.19-rc3 >>>>> git bisect start 'HEAD' 'v3.19-rc3' >>>>> # good: [c48667c5659248ff2b2fbff5cd23c43b5768e81b] Merge remote-tracking branch 'net-next/master' >>>>> git bisect good c48667c5659248ff2b2fbff5cd23c43b5768e81b >>>>> # good: [b8cf629ce7d554711dd7ab256b00e6110355e1d7] Merge remote-tracking branch 'mmc-uh/next' >>>>> git bisect good b8cf629ce7d554711dd7ab256b00e6110355e1d7 >>>>> # good: [cc52ff032bc2d91c78d7cf9aefcfa9e266ace816] Merge remote-tracking branch 'rcu/rcu/next' >>>>> git bisect good cc52ff032bc2d91c78d7cf9aefcfa9e266ace816 >>>>> # bad: [9634277bcdab7b9d6a91409dc11d85502aa2e74b] Merge remote-tracking branch 'access_once/linux-next' >>>>> git bisect bad 9634277bcdab7b9d6a91409dc11d85502aa2e74b >>>>> # good: [261379560ee6aa65b4869c94eda0d3d60773aca3] Merge remote-tracking branch 'scsi/for-next' >>>>> git bisect good 261379560ee6aa65b4869c94eda0d3d60773aca3 >>>>> # good: [38d45afa56bfca714780e45532760d64cd53b65b] Merge remote-tracking branch 'llvmlinux/for-next' >>>>> git bisect good 38d45afa56bfca714780e45532760d64cd53b65b >>>>> # good: [9afbe1ce2403c7d097bfaafcc5b27950040f7608] Merge remote-tracking branch 'y2038/y2038' >>>>> git bisect good 9afbe1ce2403c7d097bfaafcc5b27950040f7608 >>>>> # bad: [a91ed664749cbec0325ef9da7d12619d9bb72e2d] kernel: tighten rules for ACCESS ONCE >>>>> git bisect bad a91ed664749cbec0325ef9da7d12619d9bb72e2d >>>>> # good: [e3865cc4a17e979e6b2f26af026686fae5567096] x86/xen/p2m: Replace ACCESS_ONCE with READ_ONCE >>>>> git bisect good e3865cc4a17e979e6b2f26af026686fae5567096 >>>>> # good: [e2579c6f22ee0a43394d603cef6989dca98c5610] mm/gup: Replace ACCESS_ONCE with READ_ONCE >>>>> git bisect good e2579c6f22ee0a43394d603cef6989dca98c5610 >>>>> # first bad commit: [a91ed664749cbec0325ef9da7d12619d9bb72e2d] kernel: tighten rules for ACCESS ONCE >>>>> >>>>> Maybe the ACCESS_ONCE in the affected file should be replaced with READ_ONCE ? >>>> >>>> That is my belief. What happens when you try it? >>>> >>> Build passes, and my qemu tests pass as well. That doesn't mean >>> that the change is correct, of course, since I don't know if the code >>> in question is executed. >> >> Would it be possible to increment a counter at that location, then >> print it out at some convenient point? >> > I made it simpler and just added a call to panic() ... which had no effect, > so the function is not called in my qemu tests. Any idea what I would have > to do to trigger a call ? > >>> Should I send a patch with the change ? >> >> I believe such a patch is needed. Testing would be good, but the patch >> is what we were thinking of for this situation. >> > I'll probably send a patch marked "compile-tested only" if I can't find a way > to test the change. I was going to fix as well, but I can certainly take your patch. Can you send it with proper signed-off-by etc and I will add it to the access_once tree? Christian