* [linux-next:master 10159/12060] arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h:1102:16: error: implicit declaration of function 'pud_valid'; did you mean 'pmd_valid'?
@ 2024-05-08 14:24 kernel test robot
2024-05-08 15:38 ` Ryan Roberts
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: kernel test robot @ 2024-05-08 14:24 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Ryan Roberts
Cc: oe-kbuild-all, Linux Memory Management List, Will Deacon,
Catalin Marinas
tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
head: e7b4ef8fffaca247809337bb78daceb406659f2d
commit: f0f5863a0fb0fb48a5881c3f6acca1958899dd76 [10159/12060] arm64/mm: Remove PTE_PROT_NONE bit
config: arm64-randconfig-r013-20230528 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240508/202405082221.43rfWxz5-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: aarch64-linux-gcc (GCC) 13.2.0
reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240508/202405082221.43rfWxz5-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)
If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202405082221.43rfWxz5-lkp@intel.com/
All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
In file included from include/linux/pgtable.h:6,
from arch/arm64/include/asm/io.h:12,
from include/linux/io.h:13,
from include/linux/irq.h:20,
from include/asm-generic/hardirq.h:17,
from arch/arm64/include/asm/hardirq.h:17,
from include/linux/hardirq.h:11,
from include/linux/interrupt.h:11,
from include/linux/trace_recursion.h:5,
from include/linux/ftrace.h:10,
from arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c:12:
arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h: In function 'pud_user_accessible_page':
>> arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h:1102:16: error: implicit declaration of function 'pud_valid'; did you mean 'pmd_valid'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
1102 | return pud_valid(pud) && !pud_table(pud) && (pud_user(pud) || pud_user_exec(pud));
| ^~~~~~~~~
| pmd_valid
cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
make[3]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:117: arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.s] Error 1
make[3]: Target 'prepare' not remade because of errors.
make[2]: *** [Makefile:1197: prepare0] Error 2
make[2]: Target 'prepare' not remade because of errors.
make[1]: *** [Makefile:240: __sub-make] Error 2
make[1]: Target 'prepare' not remade because of errors.
make: *** [Makefile:240: __sub-make] Error 2
make: Target 'prepare' not remade because of errors.
vim +1102 arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
1099
1100 static inline bool pud_user_accessible_page(pud_t pud)
1101 {
> 1102 return pud_valid(pud) && !pud_table(pud) && (pud_user(pud) || pud_user_exec(pud));
1103 }
1104 #endif
1105
--
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-next:master 10159/12060] arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h:1102:16: error: implicit declaration of function 'pud_valid'; did you mean 'pmd_valid'?
2024-05-08 14:24 [linux-next:master 10159/12060] arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h:1102:16: error: implicit declaration of function 'pud_valid'; did you mean 'pmd_valid'? kernel test robot
@ 2024-05-08 15:38 ` Ryan Roberts
2024-05-08 17:12 ` Will Deacon
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Ryan Roberts @ 2024-05-08 15:38 UTC (permalink / raw
To: kernel test robot, Will Deacon
Cc: oe-kbuild-all, Linux Memory Management List, Catalin Marinas
On 08/05/2024 15:24, kernel test robot wrote:
> tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
> head: e7b4ef8fffaca247809337bb78daceb406659f2d
> commit: f0f5863a0fb0fb48a5881c3f6acca1958899dd76 [10159/12060] arm64/mm: Remove PTE_PROT_NONE bit
> config: arm64-randconfig-r013-20230528 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240508/202405082221.43rfWxz5-lkp@intel.com/config)
> compiler: aarch64-linux-gcc (GCC) 13.2.0
> reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240508/202405082221.43rfWxz5-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)
>
> If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
> the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
> | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202405082221.43rfWxz5-lkp@intel.com/
>
> All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
>
> In file included from include/linux/pgtable.h:6,
> from arch/arm64/include/asm/io.h:12,
> from include/linux/io.h:13,
> from include/linux/irq.h:20,
> from include/asm-generic/hardirq.h:17,
> from arch/arm64/include/asm/hardirq.h:17,
> from include/linux/hardirq.h:11,
> from include/linux/interrupt.h:11,
> from include/linux/trace_recursion.h:5,
> from include/linux/ftrace.h:10,
> from arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c:12:
> arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h: In function 'pud_user_accessible_page':
>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h:1102:16: error: implicit declaration of function 'pud_valid'; did you mean 'pmd_valid'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> 1102 | return pud_valid(pud) && !pud_table(pud) && (pud_user(pud) || pud_user_exec(pud));
> | ^~~~~~~~~
> | pmd_valid
Hi Will,
Looks like this is due to pud_valid() not being defined for
CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS <= 2. Seems to me that this is the cleanest solution. But
pgtable folding breaks my brain so perhaps there is a better way?
What's the process here? Can you just merge this into the broken patch, or do I
need to re-post the series, or post a fix patch formally?
--8<----
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
index c60dcb455ebd..f8efbc128446 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
@@ -810,6 +810,7 @@ static inline pmd_t *pud_pgtable(pud_t pud)
#else
+#define pud_valid(pud) false
#define pud_page_paddr(pud) ({ BUILD_BUG(); 0; })
#define pud_user_exec(pud) pud_user(pud) /* Always 0 with folding */
--8<----
Thanks,
Ryan
> cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
> make[3]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:117: arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.s] Error 1
> make[3]: Target 'prepare' not remade because of errors.
> make[2]: *** [Makefile:1197: prepare0] Error 2
> make[2]: Target 'prepare' not remade because of errors.
> make[1]: *** [Makefile:240: __sub-make] Error 2
> make[1]: Target 'prepare' not remade because of errors.
> make: *** [Makefile:240: __sub-make] Error 2
> make: Target 'prepare' not remade because of errors.
>
>
> vim +1102 arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>
> 1099
> 1100 static inline bool pud_user_accessible_page(pud_t pud)
> 1101 {
>> 1102 return pud_valid(pud) && !pud_table(pud) && (pud_user(pud) || pud_user_exec(pud));
> 1103 }
> 1104 #endif
> 1105
>
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-next:master 10159/12060] arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h:1102:16: error: implicit declaration of function 'pud_valid'; did you mean 'pmd_valid'?
2024-05-08 15:38 ` Ryan Roberts
@ 2024-05-08 17:12 ` Will Deacon
2024-05-09 12:59 ` Ryan Roberts
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Will Deacon @ 2024-05-08 17:12 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Ryan Roberts
Cc: kernel test robot, oe-kbuild-all, Linux Memory Management List,
Catalin Marinas
Hey Ryan,
On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 04:38:01PM +0100, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 08/05/2024 15:24, kernel test robot wrote:
> > tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
> > head: e7b4ef8fffaca247809337bb78daceb406659f2d
> > commit: f0f5863a0fb0fb48a5881c3f6acca1958899dd76 [10159/12060] arm64/mm: Remove PTE_PROT_NONE bit
> > config: arm64-randconfig-r013-20230528 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240508/202405082221.43rfWxz5-lkp@intel.com/config)
> > compiler: aarch64-linux-gcc (GCC) 13.2.0
> > reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240508/202405082221.43rfWxz5-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)
> >
> > If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
> > the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
> > | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> > | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202405082221.43rfWxz5-lkp@intel.com/
> >
> > All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
> >
> > In file included from include/linux/pgtable.h:6,
> > from arch/arm64/include/asm/io.h:12,
> > from include/linux/io.h:13,
> > from include/linux/irq.h:20,
> > from include/asm-generic/hardirq.h:17,
> > from arch/arm64/include/asm/hardirq.h:17,
> > from include/linux/hardirq.h:11,
> > from include/linux/interrupt.h:11,
> > from include/linux/trace_recursion.h:5,
> > from include/linux/ftrace.h:10,
> > from arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c:12:
> > arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h: In function 'pud_user_accessible_page':
> >>> arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h:1102:16: error: implicit declaration of function 'pud_valid'; did you mean 'pmd_valid'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > 1102 | return pud_valid(pud) && !pud_table(pud) && (pud_user(pud) || pud_user_exec(pud));
> > | ^~~~~~~~~
> > | pmd_valid
>
> Hi Will,
>
> Looks like this is due to pud_valid() not being defined for
> CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS <= 2. Seems to me that this is the cleanest solution. But
> pgtable folding breaks my brain so perhaps there is a better way?
I think your approach is the right idea. pgtable-nopmd.h defines
pud_present() as 'return 1', but I think pud_valid() can be false given
that it's only used directly by the arch code.
> What's the process here? Can you just merge this into the broken patch, or do I
> need to re-post the series, or post a fix patch formally?
for-next/mm is stable, so please just submit proper patches on top of
that (and you can add a Fixes: tag as well).
Cheers,
Will
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-next:master 10159/12060] arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h:1102:16: error: implicit declaration of function 'pud_valid'; did you mean 'pmd_valid'?
2024-05-08 17:12 ` Will Deacon
@ 2024-05-09 12:59 ` Ryan Roberts
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Ryan Roberts @ 2024-05-09 12:59 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Will Deacon
Cc: kernel test robot, oe-kbuild-all, Linux Memory Management List,
Catalin Marinas
On 08/05/2024 18:12, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hey Ryan,
>
> On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 04:38:01PM +0100, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>> On 08/05/2024 15:24, kernel test robot wrote:
>>> tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
>>> head: e7b4ef8fffaca247809337bb78daceb406659f2d
>>> commit: f0f5863a0fb0fb48a5881c3f6acca1958899dd76 [10159/12060] arm64/mm: Remove PTE_PROT_NONE bit
>>> config: arm64-randconfig-r013-20230528 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240508/202405082221.43rfWxz5-lkp@intel.com/config)
>>> compiler: aarch64-linux-gcc (GCC) 13.2.0
>>> reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240508/202405082221.43rfWxz5-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)
>>>
>>> If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
>>> the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
>>> | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
>>> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202405082221.43rfWxz5-lkp@intel.com/
>>>
>>> All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
>>>
>>> In file included from include/linux/pgtable.h:6,
>>> from arch/arm64/include/asm/io.h:12,
>>> from include/linux/io.h:13,
>>> from include/linux/irq.h:20,
>>> from include/asm-generic/hardirq.h:17,
>>> from arch/arm64/include/asm/hardirq.h:17,
>>> from include/linux/hardirq.h:11,
>>> from include/linux/interrupt.h:11,
>>> from include/linux/trace_recursion.h:5,
>>> from include/linux/ftrace.h:10,
>>> from arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c:12:
>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h: In function 'pud_user_accessible_page':
>>>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h:1102:16: error: implicit declaration of function 'pud_valid'; did you mean 'pmd_valid'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>>> 1102 | return pud_valid(pud) && !pud_table(pud) && (pud_user(pud) || pud_user_exec(pud));
>>> | ^~~~~~~~~
>>> | pmd_valid
>>
>> Hi Will,
>>
>> Looks like this is due to pud_valid() not being defined for
>> CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS <= 2. Seems to me that this is the cleanest solution. But
>> pgtable folding breaks my brain so perhaps there is a better way?
>
> I think your approach is the right idea. pgtable-nopmd.h defines
> pud_present() as 'return 1', but I think pud_valid() can be false given
> that it's only used directly by the arch code.
>
>> What's the process here? Can you just merge this into the broken patch, or do I
>> need to re-post the series, or post a fix patch formally?
>
> for-next/mm is stable, so please just submit proper patches on top of
> that (and you can add a Fixes: tag as well).
OK no problem - I've posted the patch. Sorry about this!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Will
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-05-09 12:59 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-05-08 14:24 [linux-next:master 10159/12060] arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h:1102:16: error: implicit declaration of function 'pud_valid'; did you mean 'pmd_valid'? kernel test robot
2024-05-08 15:38 ` Ryan Roberts
2024-05-08 17:12 ` Will Deacon
2024-05-09 12:59 ` Ryan Roberts
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).