Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm/gup: fix a misnamed "write" argument: should be "flags"

["Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>]

On 10/14/19 7:22 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 11:43:10PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>> On 10/13/19 11:12 PM, kbuild test robot wrote:
>>> Hi John,
>>>
>>> Thank you for the patch! Yet something to improve:
>>>
>>> [auto build test ERROR on linus/master]
>>> [cannot apply to v5.4-rc3 next-20191011]
>>> [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/John-Hubbard/gup-c-gup_benchmark-c-trivial-fixes-before-the-storm/20191014-114158
>>> config: powerpc-defconfig (attached as .config)
>>> compiler: powerpc64-linux-gcc (GCC) 7.4.0
>>> reproduce:
>>>           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
>>>           GCC_VERSION=7.4.0 make.cross ARCH=powerpc
>>>
>>> If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag
>>> Reported-by: kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com>
>>>
>>> All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
>>>
>>>      mm/gup.c: In function 'gup_hugepte':
>>>>> mm/gup.c:1990:33: error: 'write' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'writeq'?
>>>        if (!pte_access_permitted(pte, write))
>>>                                       ^~~~~
>>>                                       writeq
>>>      mm/gup.c:1990:33: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
>>>
>>
>> OK, so this shows that my cross-compiler test scripts are faulty lately,
>> sorry I missed this.
>>
>> But more importantly, the above missed case is an example of when "write" really
>> means "write", as opposed to meaning flags.
>>
>> Please put this patch on hold or drop it, until we hear from the authors as to how
>> they would like to resolve this. I suspect it will end up as something like:
>>
>> 	bool write = (flags & FOLL_WRITE);
>>
>> ...perhaps?
> 
> Just use
> 
> 	if (!pte_access_permitted(pte, flags & FOLL_WRITE))
> 
> as we have in gup_pte_range().
> 
> And add:
> 
> Fixes: cbd34da7dc9a ("mm: move the powerpc hugepd code to mm/gup.c")
> 

b798bec4741bdd80224214fdd004c8e52698e42 isn't this the commit that need 
to be mentioned in the Fixes: tag?

-aneesh