From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Williams Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the akpm-current tree Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 20:34:58 -0800 Message-ID: References: <20171120125748.156fa18b@canb.auug.org.au> <20171120153230.1738cc35@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: Received: from mail-ot0-f170.google.com ([74.125.82.170]:36099 "EHLO mail-ot0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750764AbdKTEe7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Nov 2017 23:34:59 -0500 Received: by mail-ot0-f170.google.com with SMTP id t79so6646073ota.3 for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2017 20:34:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20171120153230.1738cc35@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Andrew Morton , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Dan, > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 20:25:18 -0800 Dan Williams wrote: >> >> Ugh, yes. Looks correct. I might have confused my build success >> notifications from 0day. I'll spin out a new branch to make sure this >> is the last of it. > > Thanks. > > While I have your attention ... did you consider using the other > paradigm: > > In arch include files: > #define pud_write pud_write > static inline int pud_write(pud_t pud) > ..... > > Then in include/asm-generic/pgtable.h: > > #ifndef pud_write > tatic inline int pud_write(pud_t pud) > { > .... > } > #endif > > If you had, then the powerpc code would have worked ... ;-) > and many of the other interfaces in include/asm-generic/pgtable.h are > protected that way ... I like that better. I simply cargo-culted the way pmd_write() was defined, and should have given it a bit more thought. Andrew, I'll respin these with Stephen's suggestion.