From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the rcu tree Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 10:35:29 -0700 Message-ID: <20150717173528.GH3717@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20150716131423.4c849184@canb.auug.org.au> <20150716035138.GQ3717@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150717114046.GB5396@gmail.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.152]:40849 "EHLO e34.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753079AbbGQRfe (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jul 2015 13:35:34 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e34.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 11:35:34 -0600 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150717114046.GB5396@gmail.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andy Lutomirski On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 01:40:46PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 01:14:23PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Hi Paul, > > > > > > After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (arm > > > multi_v7_defconfig) failed like this: > > > > > > kernel/notifier.c: In function 'notify_die': > > > kernel/notifier.c:547:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'rcu_lockdep_assert' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > > > rcu_lockdep_assert(rcu_is_watching(), > > > ^ > > > > > > Caused by commit > > > > > > 02300fdb3e5f ("rcu: Rename rcu_lockdep_assert() to RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN()") > > > > > > interacting with commit > > > > > > e727c7d7a11e ("notifiers, RCU: Assert that RCU is watching in notify_die()") > > > > > > [ and I also noted > > > 0333a209cbf6 ("x86/irq, context_tracking: Document how IRQ context tracking works and add an RCU assertion") > > > ] > > > > > > from the tip tree. > > > > Thank you in both cases! I suspect that more will follow, so is there > > something I can do to make this easier? (Hard for me to patch stuff > > that is not yet in the tree...) > > So we could keep the old macro around as well for such cases, and then remove it > in v4.4 or so? Works for me! Will do. Thanx, Paul