Re: next-20240712: task_work.c:(.text+0xc2): undefined reference to `irq_work_queue'

[Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>]

On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 05:03:33PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 04:11:54PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2024, at 15:24, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 02:28:38PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > >> On Fri, Jul 12, 2024, at 14:13, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> > >
> > >> that we may have to always enable IRQ_WORK even on non-SMP
> > >> kernels now. In practice it is already enabled in most
> > >> configurations for one reason or another, the the cost is
> > >> likely very small.
> > >> 
> > >> Otherwise checking for CONFIG_HAVE_NMI in the new code might work.
> > >
> > > ARM seems to have HAVE_NMI while also being one of the architectures
> > > that is now failing.
> > 
> > Right, in this case we would also need
> > 
> > --- a/arch/Kconfig
> > +++ b/arch/Kconfig
> > @@ -236,6 +236,7 @@ config HAVE_FUNCTION_ERROR_INJECTION
> >  
> >  config HAVE_NMI
> >         bool
> > +       select IRQ_WORK
> >  
> >  config HAVE_FUNCTION_DESCRIPTORS
> >         bool
> 
> Yeah, that works for me I suppose.

Was there any conclusion to this thread that I missed? The
configurations Naresh mentioned in the original post are now broken in
mainline because the pull request was sent without any solution to this
issue.

FWIW, that diff doesn't fix ARCH=powerpc tinyconfig, as it does not have
CONFIG_HAVE_NMI. kernel/task_work.c is unconditionally built so
shouldn't IRQ_WORK now be 'default y' (or just eliminated altogether)?

Cheers,
Nathan