From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751529AbdJRQQc (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Oct 2017 12:16:32 -0400 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:57665 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750939AbdJRQQb (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Oct 2017 12:16:31 -0400 Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:16:21 +0200 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: kbuild test robot , kbuild-all@01.org, Josh Triplett , Steven Rostedt , Mathieu Desnoyers , Lai Jiangshan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: do not include rtmutex_common.h unconditionally Message-ID: <20171018161621.3o7fljv4wl3geutv@linutronix.de> References: <201710180754.irSSdw3W%fengguang.wu@intel.com> <20171018041447.GF3521@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20171018073209.7l4p3lloqiw4bm6y@linutronix.de> <20171018083436.mlbwx2zvakp54gbw@linutronix.de> <20171018153946.GH3521@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171018153946.GH3521@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2017-10-18 08:39:46 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote: > Thank you very much, hand-applied as a preparatory patch for > "Suppress lockdep false-positive ->boost_mtx complaints", please see > below. okay. > What I don't understand is why 0day test robot didn't complain about > my copy of the exact same patch. Or maybe it did and I fat-fingered it? > Except that I have gotten "BUILD SUCCESS" reports for commits including > that one. I don't know. It is a "defconfig" for m32r. Unless it skipped that one, dunno. > commit a06f537e75ea0a9e81245ede1b97bb3a5762b81b > Author: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior > Date: Wed Oct 18 08:33:44 2017 -0700 > > rcu: do not include rtmutex_common.h unconditionally > > This commit adjusts include files and provides definitions in preparation > for suppressing lockdep false-positive ->boost_mtx complaints. Without > this preparation, architectures not supporting rt_mutex will get build > failures. > > Reported-by: kbuild test robot > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h > index fed95fa941e6..969eae45f05d 100644 > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h > @@ -54,6 +54,7 @@ DEFINE_PER_CPU(char, rcu_cpu_has_work); > * This probably needs to be excluded from -rt builds. > */ > #define rt_mutex_owner(a) ({ WARN_ON_ONCE(1); NULL; }) > +#define rt_mutex_futex_unlock(x) WARN_ON_ONCE(1) > > #endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */ > > @@ -911,8 +912,6 @@ void exit_rcu(void) > > #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST > > -#include "../locking/rtmutex_common.h" > - > static void rcu_wake_cond(struct task_struct *t, int status) > { > /* So this probably works. This is https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git/commit/?h=rcu%2Fdev&id=a06f537e75ea0a9e81245ede1b97bb3a5762b81b&context=40&ignorews=0&dt=0 and the rtmutex_common is still in the ifdef which confused me at first. But then you wrote "preparatory" and I saw the following patch https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git/commit/?h=rcu/next&id=33d7471ce21202ce954993552c2e0298d9e0f031 where you move that include rtmutex_common.h. You shouldn't do that because "rt_mutex_futex_unlock()" has been added added here for the !BOOST + TREE case. So I thing this should break your build if you disable CONFIG_FUTEX (which in turn unselects CONFIg_RT_MUTEX). Sebastian