From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Rothwell Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the vfs tree Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 09:49:42 +1000 Message-ID: <20180919094847.2103082b@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20180919073826.02370812@canb.auug.org.au> <20180910133525.28c5dd20@canb.auug.org.au> <15925.1537309041@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; boundary="Sig_/A3kqd4LaF7HuI/jy6GhqSpL"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <15925.1537309041@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: David Howells Cc: Al Viro , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org --Sig_/A3kqd4LaF7HuI/jy6GhqSpL Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi David, On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 23:17:21 +0100 David Howells wrot= e: > > Stephen Rothwell wrote: >=20 > > > After merging the vfs tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc > > > allyesconfig) failed like this: > > >=20 > > > samples/vfs/test-fsinfo.c: In function 'fsinfo': > > > samples/vfs/test-fsinfo.c:37:17: error: '__NR_fsinfo' undeclared (fir= st use in this function); did you mean 'fsinfo'? =20 >=20 > I think the problem is that I haven't allocated system call numbers for a= ny > arches other than x86 - even the x86 syscall numbers are provisional unti= l the > patchset is taken upstream. I'm not sure of the best way to deal with th= is - > make the samples dependent on the X86 arch? But the sample programs are built with HOSTCC, so you can't depend on ARCH (since I, for one, am cross compiling). Maybe SUBARCH. Better would be to use either Kconfig's shell primitive or some make magic to figure out if the syscall number define's are defined. > > > samples/vfs/test-fsinfo.c:180:30: warning: format '%llx' expects argu= ment of type 'long long unsigned int', but argument 2 has type '__u64' {aka= 'long unsigned int'} [-Wformat=3D] > > > printf("\tmax file size: %llx\n", f->max_file_size); =20 >=20 > Sigh. On powerpc __u64 is unsigned long, but on x86_64 it's unsigned long > long. Is it possible to shift all arches to use unsigned long long for _= _u64? I doubt it - that would probably cause more warnings in the arch code. Instead, just explicitly cast it to unsigned long long. --=20 Cheers, Stephen Rothwell --Sig_/A3kqd4LaF7HuI/jy6GhqSpL Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEENIC96giZ81tWdLgKAVBC80lX0GwFAluhjxYACgkQAVBC80lX 0GxW6gf/Vs35Z87tFVTKLvK3DyMWgVcJl17DclSTyVJbxE+KYVF3qyFYT9/Rvk0g DKEu0BymA/Zn2c7Qu1KKavt6roUqOmPWyxuiIG2xTZDWf/kow38p3TmWOoUtcwvZ uu7WFbUQIdDPF2gk8FGJwzNIpFJDTTW+LbFpbHhXAByfJfhN0/yC9/04BFsmjawW cVz7I2V5nL1cg5Lvu52OOzZu/9Ntw0XW40gE0RPmX+Q1kPQ9lCkNvs97wwYigveH mb+7NJkVi2ZQvFKtkpa9DaMMhipL1mN9HmlplXdjDIaSqbGlk+fn9opeZ4KyhN/e AfPuNstm+2Gc9zRxjjULCfBsDltnVA== =4n9x -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/A3kqd4LaF7HuI/jy6GhqSpL--