From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the akpm tree Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 14:17:58 -0700 Message-ID: <20140519141758.37af77506f42b0e11a0b1bae@linux-foundation.org> References: <20140519181314.1b92c548@canb.auug.org.au> <1400512396.2560.9.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> <20140519124850.7d4470e179c237552f363658@linux-foundation.org> <1400532980.6399.0.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:49618 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751060AbaESVSA (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 May 2014 17:18:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1400532980.6399.0.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Davidlohr Bueso Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tim Chen On Mon, 19 May 2014 13:56:20 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > On Mon, 2014-05-19 at 12:48 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Mon, 19 May 2014 08:13:16 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > > > > > > Presumably a result of commit fe2038c57c03 ("rwsem: Support optimistic > > > > spinning"). > > > > > > If CONFIG_SMP, we add two new fields to the rwsem structure > > > (include/linux/rwsem.h) and likewise we update the > > > __RWSEM_INITIALIZER(name) macro. Afaict the only way to trigger > > > something like that is to be using the spinlock variant > > > (rwsem-spinlock.h). > > > > > > The fix for that would be: > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/rwsem.h b/include/linux/rwsem.h > > > index 3e108f1..091d993 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/rwsem.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/rwsem.h > > > @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ static inline int rwsem_is_locked(struct rw_semaphore *sem) > > > # define __RWSEM_DEP_MAP_INIT(lockname) > > > #endif > > > > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP > > > +#if defined(CONFIG_SMP) && defined(CONFIG_RWSEM_XCHGADD_ALGORITHM) > > > #define __RWSEM_INITIALIZER(name) \ > > > { RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE, \ > > > __RAW_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(name.wait_lock), \ > > > > that squishes the warnings for me. > > You guys know best, but shouldn't this change be routed through -tip? Yes, this patch and the two fixes I have applied to it should be sent that way. If/when they turn up in -next I will drop my copies. Keep sending ;)