[rcu:rcu/next 25/36] include/linux/irqflags.h:79:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'arch_irqs_disabled_flags'

[rcu:rcu/next 25/36] include/linux/irqflags.h:79:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'arch_irqs_disabled_flags'

[kbuild test robot]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2500 bytes --]

tree:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git rcu/next
head:   13ee0de9cd2444b57ce30c4f1607b49b90aa0c38
commit: f251ac814fc5787765009e60d54a2bd4277350c8 [25/36] rcu: Make call_rcu_tasks() tolerate first call with irqs disabled
config: um-allmodconfig (attached as .config)
compiler: gcc-6 (Debian 6.1.1-1) 6.1.1 20160430
reproduce:
        git checkout f251ac814fc5787765009e60d54a2bd4277350c8
        # save the attached .config to linux build tree
        make ARCH=um 

All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):

   In file included from include/linux/spinlock.h:53:0,
                    from kernel/rcu/update.c:36:
   kernel/rcu/update.c: In function 'call_rcu_tasks':
>> include/linux/irqflags.h:79:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'arch_irqs_disabled_flags' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
      arch_irqs_disabled_flags(flags); \
      ^
   include/linux/irqflags.h:149:36: note: in expansion of macro 'raw_irqs_disabled_flags'
    #define irqs_disabled_flags(flags) raw_irqs_disabled_flags(flags)
                                       ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   kernel/rcu/update.c:572:21: note: in expansion of macro 'irqs_disabled_flags'
         (!havetask && !irqs_disabled_flags(flags))) {
                        ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   cc1: some warnings being treated as errors

vim +/arch_irqs_disabled_flags +79 include/linux/irqflags.h

df9ee292 David Howells 2010-10-07  73  		typecheck(unsigned long, flags);	\
df9ee292 David Howells 2010-10-07  74  		flags = arch_local_save_flags();	\
df9ee292 David Howells 2010-10-07  75  	} while (0)
df9ee292 David Howells 2010-10-07  76  #define raw_irqs_disabled_flags(flags)			\
df9ee292 David Howells 2010-10-07  77  	({						\
df9ee292 David Howells 2010-10-07  78  		typecheck(unsigned long, flags);	\
df9ee292 David Howells 2010-10-07 @79  		arch_irqs_disabled_flags(flags);	\
df9ee292 David Howells 2010-10-07  80  	})
df9ee292 David Howells 2010-10-07  81  #define raw_irqs_disabled()		(arch_irqs_disabled())
df9ee292 David Howells 2010-10-07  82  #define raw_safe_halt()			arch_safe_halt()

:::::: The code at line 79 was first introduced by commit
:::::: df9ee29270c11dba7d0fe0b83ce47a4d8e8d2101 Fix IRQ flag handling naming

:::::: TO: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
:::::: CC: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>

---
0-DAY kernel test infrastructure                Open Source Technology Center
https://lists.01.org/pipermail/kbuild-all                   Intel Corporation

[-- Attachment #2: .config.gz --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 17631 bytes --]

Re: [rcu:rcu/next 25/36] include/linux/irqflags.h:79:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'arch_irqs_disabled_flags'

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 02:04:03AM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
> tree:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git rcu/next
> head:   13ee0de9cd2444b57ce30c4f1607b49b90aa0c38
> commit: f251ac814fc5787765009e60d54a2bd4277350c8 [25/36] rcu: Make call_rcu_tasks() tolerate first call with irqs disabled
> config: um-allmodconfig (attached as .config)
> compiler: gcc-6 (Debian 6.1.1-1) 6.1.1 20160430
> reproduce:
>         git checkout f251ac814fc5787765009e60d54a2bd4277350c8
>         # save the attached .config to linux build tree
>         make ARCH=um 

My kneejerk reaction would be to make CONFIG_TASKS_RCU depend on
!UML or something similar.

Another approach would be create a arch_irqs_disabled_flags() for UML.

Any preferences?

							Thanx, Paul

> All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
> 
>    In file included from include/linux/spinlock.h:53:0,
>                     from kernel/rcu/update.c:36:
>    kernel/rcu/update.c: In function 'call_rcu_tasks':
> >> include/linux/irqflags.h:79:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'arch_irqs_disabled_flags' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>       arch_irqs_disabled_flags(flags); \
>       ^
>    include/linux/irqflags.h:149:36: note: in expansion of macro 'raw_irqs_disabled_flags'
>     #define irqs_disabled_flags(flags) raw_irqs_disabled_flags(flags)
>                                        ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>    kernel/rcu/update.c:572:21: note: in expansion of macro 'irqs_disabled_flags'
>          (!havetask && !irqs_disabled_flags(flags))) {
>                         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>    cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
> 
> vim +/arch_irqs_disabled_flags +79 include/linux/irqflags.h
> 
> df9ee292 David Howells 2010-10-07  73  		typecheck(unsigned long, flags);	\
> df9ee292 David Howells 2010-10-07  74  		flags = arch_local_save_flags();	\
> df9ee292 David Howells 2010-10-07  75  	} while (0)
> df9ee292 David Howells 2010-10-07  76  #define raw_irqs_disabled_flags(flags)			\
> df9ee292 David Howells 2010-10-07  77  	({						\
> df9ee292 David Howells 2010-10-07  78  		typecheck(unsigned long, flags);	\
> df9ee292 David Howells 2010-10-07 @79  		arch_irqs_disabled_flags(flags);	\
> df9ee292 David Howells 2010-10-07  80  	})
> df9ee292 David Howells 2010-10-07  81  #define raw_irqs_disabled()		(arch_irqs_disabled())
> df9ee292 David Howells 2010-10-07  82  #define raw_safe_halt()			arch_safe_halt()
> 
> :::::: The code at line 79 was first introduced by commit
> :::::: df9ee29270c11dba7d0fe0b83ce47a4d8e8d2101 Fix IRQ flag handling naming
> 
> :::::: TO: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
> :::::: CC: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
> 
> ---
> 0-DAY kernel test infrastructure                Open Source Technology Center
> https://lists.01.org/pipermail/kbuild-all                   Intel Corporation

Re: [rcu:rcu/next 25/36] include/linux/irqflags.h:79:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'arch_irqs_disabled_flags'

[Richard Weinberger]

Paul,

Am 15.06.2016 um 00:54 schrieb Paul E. McKenney:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 02:04:03AM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
>> tree:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git rcu/next
>> head:   13ee0de9cd2444b57ce30c4f1607b49b90aa0c38
>> commit: f251ac814fc5787765009e60d54a2bd4277350c8 [25/36] rcu: Make call_rcu_tasks() tolerate first call with irqs disabled
>> config: um-allmodconfig (attached as .config)
>> compiler: gcc-6 (Debian 6.1.1-1) 6.1.1 20160430
>> reproduce:
>>         git checkout f251ac814fc5787765009e60d54a2bd4277350c8
>>         # save the attached .config to linux build tree
>>         make ARCH=um 
> 
> My kneejerk reaction would be to make CONFIG_TASKS_RCU depend on
> !UML or something similar.
> 
> Another approach would be create a arch_irqs_disabled_flags() for UML.
> 
> Any preferences?

Patches for arch_irqs_disabled_flags() support are already on LKML:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/6/12/162

My plan was to merge them in the v4.8 merge window.
So having CONFIG_TASKS_RCU depend on !UML for now should be fine.
We can remove the dependency in v4.8 again.

Thanks,
//richard

Re: [rcu:rcu/next 25/36] include/linux/irqflags.h:79:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'arch_irqs_disabled_flags'

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 09:05:37AM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Paul,
> 
> Am 15.06.2016 um 00:54 schrieb Paul E. McKenney:
> > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 02:04:03AM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
> >> tree:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git rcu/next
> >> head:   13ee0de9cd2444b57ce30c4f1607b49b90aa0c38
> >> commit: f251ac814fc5787765009e60d54a2bd4277350c8 [25/36] rcu: Make call_rcu_tasks() tolerate first call with irqs disabled
> >> config: um-allmodconfig (attached as .config)
> >> compiler: gcc-6 (Debian 6.1.1-1) 6.1.1 20160430
> >> reproduce:
> >>         git checkout f251ac814fc5787765009e60d54a2bd4277350c8
> >>         # save the attached .config to linux build tree
> >>         make ARCH=um 
> > 
> > My kneejerk reaction would be to make CONFIG_TASKS_RCU depend on
> > !UML or something similar.
> > 
> > Another approach would be create a arch_irqs_disabled_flags() for UML.
> > 
> > Any preferences?
> 
> Patches for arch_irqs_disabled_flags() support are already on LKML:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/6/12/162
> 
> My plan was to merge them in the v4.8 merge window.
> So having CONFIG_TASKS_RCU depend on !UML for now should be fine.
> We can remove the dependency in v4.8 again.

Sounds very good, thank you!

							Thanx, Paul

Re: [rcu:rcu/next 25/36] include/linux/irqflags.h:79:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'arch_irqs_disabled_flags'

[Richard Weinberger]

Paul,

Am 15.06.2016 um 14:45 schrieb Paul E. McKenney:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 09:05:37AM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> Paul,
>>
>> Am 15.06.2016 um 00:54 schrieb Paul E. McKenney:
>>> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 02:04:03AM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
>>>> tree:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git rcu/next
>>>> head:   13ee0de9cd2444b57ce30c4f1607b49b90aa0c38
>>>> commit: f251ac814fc5787765009e60d54a2bd4277350c8 [25/36] rcu: Make call_rcu_tasks() tolerate first call with irqs disabled
>>>> config: um-allmodconfig (attached as .config)
>>>> compiler: gcc-6 (Debian 6.1.1-1) 6.1.1 20160430
>>>> reproduce:
>>>>         git checkout f251ac814fc5787765009e60d54a2bd4277350c8
>>>>         # save the attached .config to linux build tree
>>>>         make ARCH=um 
>>>
>>> My kneejerk reaction would be to make CONFIG_TASKS_RCU depend on
>>> !UML or something similar.
>>>
>>> Another approach would be create a arch_irqs_disabled_flags() for UML.
>>>
>>> Any preferences?
>>
>> Patches for arch_irqs_disabled_flags() support are already on LKML:
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/6/12/162
>>
>> My plan was to merge them in the v4.8 merge window.
>> So having CONFIG_TASKS_RCU depend on !UML for now should be fine.
>> We can remove the dependency in v4.8 again.
> 
> Sounds very good, thank you!

The patch is now in Linus' tree. So, you can enable CONFIG_TASKS_RCU
for UML again. :-)

Thanks,
//richard

Re: [rcu:rcu/next 25/36] include/linux/irqflags.h:79:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'arch_irqs_disabled_flags'

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 10:12:11PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Paul,
> 
> Am 15.06.2016 um 14:45 schrieb Paul E. McKenney:
> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 09:05:37AM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> >> Paul,
> >>
> >> Am 15.06.2016 um 00:54 schrieb Paul E. McKenney:
> >>> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 02:04:03AM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
> >>>> tree:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git rcu/next
> >>>> head:   13ee0de9cd2444b57ce30c4f1607b49b90aa0c38
> >>>> commit: f251ac814fc5787765009e60d54a2bd4277350c8 [25/36] rcu: Make call_rcu_tasks() tolerate first call with irqs disabled
> >>>> config: um-allmodconfig (attached as .config)
> >>>> compiler: gcc-6 (Debian 6.1.1-1) 6.1.1 20160430
> >>>> reproduce:
> >>>>         git checkout f251ac814fc5787765009e60d54a2bd4277350c8
> >>>>         # save the attached .config to linux build tree
> >>>>         make ARCH=um 
> >>>
> >>> My kneejerk reaction would be to make CONFIG_TASKS_RCU depend on
> >>> !UML or something similar.
> >>>
> >>> Another approach would be create a arch_irqs_disabled_flags() for UML.
> >>>
> >>> Any preferences?
> >>
> >> Patches for arch_irqs_disabled_flags() support are already on LKML:
> >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/6/12/162
> >>
> >> My plan was to merge them in the v4.8 merge window.
> >> So having CONFIG_TASKS_RCU depend on !UML for now should be fine.
> >> We can remove the dependency in v4.8 again.
> > 
> > Sounds very good, thank you!
> 
> The patch is now in Linus' tree. So, you can enable CONFIG_TASKS_RCU
> for UML again. :-)

Very good, thank you!  I have a patch slated for the next merge window.
If you need it sooner, please let me know.

							Thanx, Paul

Re: [rcu:rcu/next 25/36] include/linux/irqflags.h:79:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'arch_irqs_disabled_flags'

[Richard Weinberger]

Paul,

On 08.08.2016 22:35, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 10:12:11PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> Paul,
>>
>> Am 15.06.2016 um 14:45 schrieb Paul E. McKenney:
>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 09:05:37AM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>>> Paul,
>>>>
>>>> Am 15.06.2016 um 00:54 schrieb Paul E. McKenney:
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 02:04:03AM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
>>>>>> tree:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git rcu/next
>>>>>> head:   13ee0de9cd2444b57ce30c4f1607b49b90aa0c38
>>>>>> commit: f251ac814fc5787765009e60d54a2bd4277350c8 [25/36] rcu: Make call_rcu_tasks() tolerate first call with irqs disabled
>>>>>> config: um-allmodconfig (attached as .config)
>>>>>> compiler: gcc-6 (Debian 6.1.1-1) 6.1.1 20160430
>>>>>> reproduce:
>>>>>>         git checkout f251ac814fc5787765009e60d54a2bd4277350c8
>>>>>>         # save the attached .config to linux build tree
>>>>>>         make ARCH=um 
>>>>>
>>>>> My kneejerk reaction would be to make CONFIG_TASKS_RCU depend on
>>>>> !UML or something similar.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another approach would be create a arch_irqs_disabled_flags() for UML.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any preferences?
>>>>
>>>> Patches for arch_irqs_disabled_flags() support are already on LKML:
>>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/6/12/162
>>>>
>>>> My plan was to merge them in the v4.8 merge window.
>>>> So having CONFIG_TASKS_RCU depend on !UML for now should be fine.
>>>> We can remove the dependency in v4.8 again.
>>>
>>> Sounds very good, thank you!
>>
>> The patch is now in Linus' tree. So, you can enable CONFIG_TASKS_RCU
>> for UML again. :-)
> 
> Very good, thank you!  I have a patch slated for the next merge window.
> If you need it sooner, please let me know.

Just noticed that CONFIG_TASKS_RCU is still disabled for UML in today's
next. Is there something missing in UML?

Thanks,
//richard

Re: [rcu:rcu/next 25/36] include/linux/irqflags.h:79:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'arch_irqs_disabled_flags'

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 10:54:54PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Paul,
> 
> On 08.08.2016 22:35, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 10:12:11PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> >> Paul,
> >>
> >> Am 15.06.2016 um 14:45 schrieb Paul E. McKenney:
> >>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 09:05:37AM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> >>>> Paul,
> >>>>
> >>>> Am 15.06.2016 um 00:54 schrieb Paul E. McKenney:
> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 02:04:03AM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
> >>>>>> tree:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git rcu/next
> >>>>>> head:   13ee0de9cd2444b57ce30c4f1607b49b90aa0c38
> >>>>>> commit: f251ac814fc5787765009e60d54a2bd4277350c8 [25/36] rcu: Make call_rcu_tasks() tolerate first call with irqs disabled
> >>>>>> config: um-allmodconfig (attached as .config)
> >>>>>> compiler: gcc-6 (Debian 6.1.1-1) 6.1.1 20160430
> >>>>>> reproduce:
> >>>>>>         git checkout f251ac814fc5787765009e60d54a2bd4277350c8
> >>>>>>         # save the attached .config to linux build tree
> >>>>>>         make ARCH=um 
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My kneejerk reaction would be to make CONFIG_TASKS_RCU depend on
> >>>>> !UML or something similar.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Another approach would be create a arch_irqs_disabled_flags() for UML.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Any preferences?
> >>>>
> >>>> Patches for arch_irqs_disabled_flags() support are already on LKML:
> >>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/6/12/162
> >>>>
> >>>> My plan was to merge them in the v4.8 merge window.
> >>>> So having CONFIG_TASKS_RCU depend on !UML for now should be fine.
> >>>> We can remove the dependency in v4.8 again.
> >>>
> >>> Sounds very good, thank you!
> >>
> >> The patch is now in Linus' tree. So, you can enable CONFIG_TASKS_RCU
> >> for UML again. :-)
> > 
> > Very good, thank you!  I have a patch slated for the next merge window.
> > If you need it sooner, please let me know.
> 
> Just noticed that CONFIG_TASKS_RCU is still disabled for UML in today's
> next. Is there something missing in UML?

Ah -- I tried enabling it some time back, but things had not yet
propagated to mainline.  I just enabled it again, and hopefully this
time 0day will be OK with  it.

Thank you for the reminder!

							Thanx, Paul